Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Elham Valley Water and Herts and Essex Water) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hailsham Water) Bill [Lords'],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Henley - on - Thames Water) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hertford) Bill [Lords], Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the effect, both as regards numbers of passports issued and money received for them, since the present increased charges were introduced?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The figures as to passports issued and fees received between 19th October, 1931, and 18th June, 1932, are as follow:

Passports issued, 42,199.
Fees received, £30,774.

For the same period in1930–31, the figures were:
Passports issued, 98,561.
Fees received, £36,458.

I am unable to estimate the effect of the increased fees on the number of passports applied for, but the decrease in foreign travel is no doubt mainly due to economic conditions, and to the appeal made by His Majesty's Government to British subjects to take their holidays in this country.

Major COLFOX: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have any intention of abolishing the system of passports altogether?

Mr. EDEN: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (MISS SHARPE'S SUICIDE).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information as to the result of the inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Miss Violet Sharpe in New York; and whether he can now communicate it to the House?

Mr. EDEN: I have now received a report from Mr. Shepherd, Acting British Consul-General at New York, who has made careful investigations into the circumstances of Miss Violet Sharpe's suicide, and who has been given every assistance in his inquiries by the police authorities.
Mr. Shepherd has interviewed all those members of Mr. Morrow's household, where Miss Sharpe was employed, who were in direct daily contact with Miss Sharpe or who were present for longer or shorter periods during her examinations by the police. He is satisfied that no physical violence whatever or so-called "third degree" methods were used by the police in that Miss Sharpe was not interrogated under conditions of severe physical strain induced by lack of sleep or want of food. She was, however, in common with two of her fellow employés, subjected to an intensive and searching examination, on account of certain misstatements made by her on the occasion of her earlier examination, and the fear of a further similar interrogation appears so to have affected her nerves that she took her own life.
On the information furnished me by Mr. Shepherd's above-mentioned report and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there would appear to be no grounds which would warrant representations to the United States Government.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Has the hon. Gentleman considered, in the light of the statement he has just made, what purports to be the last letter written by Miss Sharpe, which was published in the Press this week-end?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir; my answer is based on the report of the Consul, who had first-hand opportunities for inquiry. He may further furnish details later, but I have no reason to suppose that they will conflict with the present statement.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Are the Foreign Office satisfied that this girl was not maltreated?

Mr. EDEN: I think my answer makes the position as to that point quite plain.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (MOTOR TAXATION).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is by his recommendation that, whereas no motor-car tax is paid by all heads of missions permanently accredited to the Court of St. James, nor by all senior councillors of embassies and legations, nor by naval, military, and air attaches thereof, yet two-thirds of the normal tax has to be paid by all other foreign members of the diplomatic corps in Great Britain; and whether he will endeavour to obtain equivalent treatment for all such persons, in view of the fact that many senior diplomatic officials are receiving less favourable treatment in this respect than their juniors?

Mr. EDEN: The decision was taken after careful consideration by the Departments of His Majesty's Government concerned, and, in present circumstances, it is not proposed to vary it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

FUEL COSTS.

Mr. MARTIN: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of tons of coal consumed by the Navy during each of the years 1910, 1913, 1920, 1925, 1927, 1930, and 1931, and the cost during each of those years; and the cost of oil consumed in place of coal by the Navy during 1931?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): As the answer contains a tabulated statement I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the reply in the Official Report.

Mr. MARTIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the answer to the last part of the question?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The cost of the oil fuel consumed during 1931 was £1,474,200.

Following is the reply:

The quantity of coal consumed by the Navy in the following years and the cost thereof, were approximately as shown below:


Year.

Tons.
£


1910
…
1,594,880
1,646,900


1913
…
1,810,250
2,081,800


1920
…
842,500
3,423,000


1925
…
418,700
713,700


1927
…
346,000
535,200


1930
…
244,300
296,000


1931
…
247,600
267,000

The cost of the oil fuel consumed during 1931 was £1,474,200.

CONTRACTS (CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY).

Commander MARSDEN: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what contracts have been made between the Admiralty and the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Limited, during the past three months?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No contracts have been made by the Admiralty with the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Limited, during the last three months.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are they invited to tender?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: They are treated in exactly the same way as the others.

BUILDING PROGRAMMES.

Commander MARSDEN: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships of the 1931 building programme have already been laid down and the dates upon which it is proposed to lay down the remaining ships of the programme?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Only the gunboat and the small craft of the 1931 programme have so far been ordered. The remaining ships of the 1931 programme (cruisers, flotilla leader, destroyers, submarines and sloops) will be ordered in the autumn of this year, as I stated when introducing the Navy Estimates for 1932.

Commander MARSDEN: This is the 1931 programme we are talking about. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now say when his remaining ships will be laid down?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I said during the Debate on the Navy Estimates that the average would be round about October, and nothing has been altered in that respect.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the order will be placed with Portsmouth Dockyard for the construction of the Leader of the 1932 programme, which he announced would be built at that yard?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Since the 7th March last, when the projected allocation of the 1932 new programme was announced, it has been necessary to review the programme of work at Portsmouth Dockyard. The "Dauntless" has been sent to Portsmouth to refit, and the "Frobisher" will be fitted out there for service as a cadets' training ship, the money being found by deferring work on other refits. We also contemplate that the large repair of His Majesty's Ship "Repulse," which is due to be commenced next year, shall be done at Portsmouth Yard. The combined effect of these arrangements is to place an additional amount of work on repairs and refits which will absorb all the labour which it had been proposed to employ on building the 1932 Leader at Portsmouth; and in order to adhere to the policy of keeping dockyard numbers as steady as possible, and of avoiding exceptional entries bo be followed by large discharges, we have decided to transfer the 1932 Leader from Portsmouth Yard to contract construction. It is intended that the Leader of the 1931 new programme, which has not yet been ordered, shall be built at Portsmouth Dockyard, as previously announced.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us where the Leader that is to be transferred to contract is to be built?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I will let the hon. Member know that when the tenders are sent out next autumn, and when we get the replies.

CADETS (SEA-GOING TRAINING).

Commander MARSDEN: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made in giving effect to the Board's decision, as announced on 7th March last, that it is imperative that some sea going training should be given cadets after leaving Dartmouth, and boys when they leave their educational establishments?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It has been decided that naval cadets shall in future be given training in a sea-going cruiser after leaving Dartmouth. His Majesty's Ship "Frobisher" has been selected for this service, and the alterations necessary to fit her for it will shortly be carried out at Portsmouth Dockyard. The intention is that she shall take two terms of Dartmouth cadets immediately after the completion of their Dartmouth course and all the cadets now trained in His Majesty's Ship "Erebus," and shall carry out three cruises a year, changing one term of cadets every four months. As one of the main objects of the scheme is that the cadets should themselves do much of the work of the ship, the ordinary complement of the training ship will be kept as low as possible, and will be obtained by paying off the two existing tenders to Dartmouth College and the "Erebus," and by changing the status of the "Erebus" to that of turret drill ship with a minimum complement. The requirements of the scheme for giving sea-going training in sail to boy ratings after leaving the shore training establishments and to midshipmen, are still being worked out in detail, and will be taken into consideration in preparing the Estimates for next year and explained to the House in connection therewith.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the midshipmen in the sailing ships will form an effective part of the crew and do some of the ship's work?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It is much too early to give any details of that sort.

COLLOIDAL FUEL.

Mr. MARTIN: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is prepared, in view of the fact that the tests carried out by the Cunard Company with the new colloidal fuel have proved successful
and that the company is prepared to put the secret of the method of production at the disposal of this and other countries, to state the policy of the Admiralty concerning colloidal fuel and its use in His Majesty's ships?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Until the Admiralty have the necessary information we can only maintain an open mind on the question of the new method. As soon as we have particulars we shall, if they seem satisfactory, ask that they may be tested by the Fuel Research Station at Greenwich, which has already been experimenting in this direction.

Mr. MARTIN: Does it not mean that the Admiralty are against any form of colloidal fuel? The First Lord stated the other day that it had been tested and cast aside.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Not at all. If it is sufficiently colloidal, we shall welcome it.

IRAQ PETROLEUM COMPANY (PIPE-LINES).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at what date the pipe-lines to the coast from the oilfields in Iraq will be ready; and on what date it is expected that these pipe-lines will be in operation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Iraq Petroleum Company have been carrying out a survey of the pipe-line routes and I understand that arrangements for laying the pipe-lines are proceeding. I have no information at present as to the date on which the pipe-lines are likely to be ready or in operation, but it is provided in the agreement between the Iraqi Government and the Iraq Petroleum Company of the 24th March, 1931, that the pipe-line system shall be completed by the 31st December, 1935.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the pipe line will be finished first to the English port of Haifa, or to the French port of Beyrout?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they both under the same contract?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid I cannot carry in my head the details of the contract. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any provisional reciprocal arrangements have been arrived at between any of the Colonies and the Mother Country pending confirmation at Ottawa; and, if so, whether he will enumerate them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The arrangements arrived at between Colonial Governments and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for preferential tariff treatment are not provisional and do not require confirmation at Ottawa. In an answer given on the 13th April last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, I gave a full list of the Colonial preferences which had been approved or brought into force up to that date. Since the date of that reply a preferential tariff has been introduced in the Straits Settlements which is similar to that of the Federated Malay States, and the High Commissioner has also reported that a similar enactment is being considered in the Unfederated Malay State of Johore. A preferential tariff has also been introduced in the Turks and Caicos Islands under which the British Empire receives a preference ranging from one-quarter to the whole of the duty. As regards Ceylon, the position is that the State Council recently passed a resolution in favour of the principle of Imperial Preference on a reciprocal basis, and detailed proposals for the establishment of a system of preferential duties are now under consideration of the Ceylon Government.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: In view of the preference given on tea in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman press the matter of preference in Ceylon?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I pressed it a long time ago, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, under the Constitution of Ceylon my powers are limited.

COLONIAL REPRESENTATION.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether every Colony in the British Empire is sending representatives to Ottawa; and, if not, what Colony or Colonies are not being represented and for what, reason?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Individual colonies will not be separately represented at the Ottawa Conference. As at previous Imperial Conferences the interests of the Colonial Empire will be represented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject made by the Lord President in the Debate on the 16th June.

AIR ROUTES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air which member of the British Government Delegation to Ottawa will be instructed with regard to the negotiations at that Conference with regard to Imperial air routes; and whether any expert will accompany the Delegation to assist in such negotiations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has explained, the responsibility for dealing with particular questions at the Conference will be that of the Delegation as a whole. It is proposed, however, that they shall have the assistance of a representative of the Air Ministry who will proceed to Ottawa for a short period whilst the Conference is in session, in order that expert advice may be available on any air questions which may arise.

BRITISH AGRICULTURE.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his policy at Ottawa will be based on the necessity for securing to the Home producer the first place in the home market?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir.

KENYA.

Mr. HICKS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under
the East African Native Authority Ordinance, as recently amended, it is possible to call up native labour for compulsory unpaid work on roads or other public works?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Provision still exist!! in the Kenya Native Authority Ordinance, to which I assume the hon. Member refers, for resort to compulsory unpaid labour for works for the benefit of the community to which the natives belong.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does this compulsion apply merely to native workers or does it also apply to European workers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It applies only to native workers and only to services which are performed by natives for their own advantage.

Mr. HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a desirable practice?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps I might just quote to the hon. Member the Provision of the International Convention which especially exempts
minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community.

Mr. HICKS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in East Africa, when a boundary mark has to be put up between areas of European and native jurisdiction, any labour, paid or unpaid, is contributed by Europeans, and /or whether any contribution towards the cost is made by Europeans or from public funds?

Sir P. CDNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that this question relates to Kenya. The demarcation of the boundaries between the Native Reserves and European or other areas is undertaken by the Survey Department which is remunerated from the public revenue of the Colony; and I have no information to show that unpaid labour, whether native or European, is employed.

PALESTINE (SUPREME MOSLEM COUNCIL).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the
accounts of the Moslem Supreme (Shari's) Council in Palestine are not audited, seeing that it discharges a function under the Government of Palestine and receives substantial contributions from public funds?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The President and Members of the Supreme Moslem Council receive salaries in respect of their services in connection with the Moslem religious courts. The accounts for which the Council is responsible relate to Moslem Wakfs, or religious endowments. These Wakfs include certain tithes which, by agreement with the Moslem community, are collected by the Government on their behalf, but do not include any contribution from public funds. A demand by certain members of the Moslem community that the accounts of Wakf funds should be made subject to Government audit is under consideration.

ASHANTI AND NIGERIA (JUDICIAL SYSTEMS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under the legal system prevailing in Ashanti, persons accused of criminal offences, whatever the nature of the charge, are still without any right to legal representation in court; what, if any, investigations or inquiries have been made in the last two years into the working of this system; what, if any, recommendations have been made to him on this subject; and whether he will take steps immediately to secure that legal representation be allowed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, I am aware that the position is as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. The legal adviser to the Colonial Office has recently visited the Gold Coast and discussed with the local authorities this and similar questions in connection with the judicial system in Ashanti. I am in communication with the Officer Administering the Government of the Gold Coast on the subject, and I hope shortly to be in a position to announce my decision.

Mr. JONES: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in a large part of the
protectorate of Nigeria original criminal jurisdiction is exclusively exercised by administrative officers without the accused having any right to legal representation or right of appeal against conviction; what is the maximum sentence which can be imposed; what, if any, investigations or inquiries have been made in the last two years into the working of this system; what, if any, recommendations have been made to him on this subject; and whether he will take steps to remedy it by the extension of the jurisdiction of the supreme court of Nigeria or by the introduction of a system similar to that of the supreme court and the grant of legal representation to accused persons?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, I am aware that, broadly speaking, the position is as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. The maximum sentence which can be imposed by a provincial court in Nigeria is death. The Chief Justice may, however, on the application of any party to a case, or of a lieutenant-governor or resident, transfer the case at any stage from any provincial court to the supreme court. The legal adviser to the Colonial Office has recently visited Nigeria and has discussed with the Governor, Sir Donald Cameron, this and kindred questions in connection with the administration of justice in Nigeria. As a result of that discussion, proposals have been submitted with a view to certain changes being made in the existing judicial system. I hope to discuss those proposals with Sir Donald Cameron during his forthcoming leave of absence, and the decision reached will be announced in due course.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the natives in being prosecuted, are fully seized of their rights of appeal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly.

AERODROMES (NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider introducing legislation to prevent the erection in the neighbourhood of aerodromes of buildings or other obstructions likely to prove detrimental to the safety of machines using such aerodromes?

Sir P. SASSOON: The subject is one which has been engaging the close attention of the Air Ministry. Local authorities will have some powers of this kind for aerodromes in planning schemes under the Town and Country Planning Bill, but my Noble Friend cannot undertake to promote other special legislation for the purpose at present.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOMBING PRACTICE).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, with regard to the dropping of bombs in the sea by Royal Air Force planes in the course of practice, if he will say where these bomb-dropping ranges are; and whether any complaints have been received either from residents on the coast nearby or from the fishermen in respect of the killing of fish by detonation?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question the ranges for practice bombing of this kind are situated at Skipsea, near Bridlington, Donna Nook and Holbeach. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative but the matter referred to is under investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-MAIL SERVICES.

DEVELOPMENT.

Lord APSLEY: 24.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a permanent advisory committee, with representatives of the Post Office, Air Ministry, and Dominion, Colonial, and India Offices, to co-ordinate the interests of these Departments in developing British air-mail services and to avoid the conflict of such interests which has hindered development up to date?

Sir P. SASSOON: I cannot accept the Noble Lord's implication of lack of co-ordination and avoidable conflict of interest. My Noble Friend is of opinion that the interests of British air-mail services are better promoted by a continuance of the close co-operation of the Departments concerned, together with the appointment where necessary of special committees, than by the setting up of a permanent advisory committee.

ADVERTISEMENTS (POST OFFICE).

Lord APSLEY: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the expenditure allocated by his Department in 1931 to exhibiting advertisements of British air mail services in post offices; and whether, in view of the profit obtained from these services, he will consider increasing such advertising at an early date?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): No expenditure was incurred in 1931 by the Post Office in exhibiting advertisements in Post Office buildings of British air mail services, though publicity was afforded in other directions, but arrangements have been made recently to exhibit at a number of the largest post offices maps showing the air mail services available to the public in this country.

SOUTH AFRICA (CONTRACT).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state to what firm the contract for air mail services in the Union of South Africa is to be allocated; and whether, if no decision has yet been reached upon this matter, he will urge upon the Government of South Africa the advisability of ensuring that the contract is not placed in foreign quarters unless no other alternative service can be supplied from Empire sources?

Lord APSLEY: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, as the contract of the South African Government with Union Airways for the carriage of air mails in South Africa expires on 26th August, and as that company has now been purchased by the German Junkers Company, representations can be made to the Government of South Africa suggesting to them the advisability of deferring any decision to renew the contract with that company until every opportunity has been given to Empire-controlled companies to submit alternative schemes?

Mr. JOEL: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the proposal that an air mail contract should be awarded to a German-controlled company by the Government of South Africa; and if he will represent to the Government of South Africa the advisability of ascertain-
ing whether a satisfactory service could equally be provided by a South African or British company?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I understand that His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa have stipulated that the company Undertaking these air services in the Union should be one registered in South Africa, and that various proposals put forward on this basis are now under their consideration. I do not think that the matter is one on which I could appropriately make representations, but His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom naturally hope that any such company will so far as possible employ machines and material originating in the British Commonwealth.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.

Mr. GUY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the total output of electricity under the national scheme controlled by the Central Electricity Board for the year 1931 and the estimated output for the year 1932; and the average cost per unit to the consumer on the domestic and power rate, respectively?

Mr. MARTIN: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport what part of the 12,800,000,000 units of electricity generated last year in this country was sold by the Central Electricity Board; and what was the net profit of the Board derived from these sales?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The national transmission system of the Central Electricity Board is still in course of construction and it cannot yet be said that the Board are controlling the output of electricity under the Act of 1926. The Board are directing the operation of certain generating stations in connection with supplies under temporary or special arrangements, and I am informed that normal trading in some of the scheme areas will commence during the current year.

LONDON SERVICES (EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS).

Mr. HICKS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Institution of Electrical Engineers has been requested by a Government Department to circulate a document for the enrolment of volunteers to maintain the London electricity supply services in the event of an emergency; and which Department made this request and the reasons for it?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am aware of the action which has been taken. The document referred to was issued by the Institution of Electrical Engineers by arrangement with the Ministry of Transport, as part of the arrangements necessary to keep up to date in certain details the organisation which has been in existence under successive Governments for some 10 years for the purpose of carrying on essential services in the event of an emergency of the kind contemplated by the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. Similar action has been taken as a matter of routine on previous occasions. It is hardly necessary to add that there is no reason whatever to expect that circumstances will occur which will make it necessary to bring the organisation into active use.

Mr. HICKS: Is it not a fact that this Institution has a Royal Charter sanctioned by this House, giving it specific duties for the promotion of electrical engineering science; and, if that be so, is it not rather a dangerous thing, when once it has been granted a Charter for such purposes, to give it permission to engage in work of a political character and in the organisation of labour?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not answer the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question without notice. I am perfectly certain that it is the duty of the Government to see that, in case of need, London should not go without light.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has any encouragement been given by the Government to certain universities which are also endeavouring to enrol voluntary forces?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Mr. GUY: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to secure a wider publicity for the highway code in the interest of safety on the roads?

Mr. PYBUS: Up to the present a free copy of the highway code has been issued to every driver of a motor vehicle with his driving licence, and any member of the public can obtain a copy for one penny. I understand that the first edition of three million copies is practically exhausted and that arrangements are being made for a reprint. I am considering what steps can be taken to bring the provisions of the code to the knowledge of a wider public.

RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the passing of the dividend by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company on the preference stock, which has been a trustee stock, he will say when he expects to be able to introduce legislation to equalise the burdens between rail and road transport?

Mr. PYBUS: As the hon. Member is aware, I have referred the question of the burdens borne by road and rail transport respectively to a conference of leading representatives of the two forms of transport, presided over by an independent chairman. I must await their report before considering, in conjunction with the highway authorities and other interests concerned, whether legislation is desirable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Member give us any idea as to when the report of this Committee will be received?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes. We hope to receive it about the end of July.

GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport what amounts of the £2,115,000 spent on the construction of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road were spent on wages, materials, and land purchase, respectively?

Mr. PYBUS: As the hon. Member was informed on the 15th June, the revised estimate is £2,323,300. The contract for
works amounts to about £2,030,000, of which probably 40 per cent. represent wages. The estimated cost of property is £140,000.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the Minister tell us if Sir Henry Maybury had anything to do, as a consulting engineer, with the Glasgow-Edinburgh road 1

Mr. PYBUS: I think that I must have notice of that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister appoint a Committee to investigate what is really the matter in regard to this road between Glasgow and Edinburgh which has been under way for eight years?

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS.

Colonel GRETTON: 30.
asked the Minister of. Transport what are the numbers of the Traffic Commissioners and their staff; and what is the total amount of their salaries'?

Mr. PYBUS: The number of Traffic Commissioners is 37, of whom 13 are paid. The staff as provided in the Estimates for the year 1932 numbers 432, and the salary and wages cost is £114,085. The cost of the Commissioners and their staff is estimated to be covered by licence fees.

GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. COCKS: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will lay upon the Table the terms of the agreement of 27th November, 1930, between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate, with respect to the provision of opera?

Sir K. WOOD: As the Post Office is not a party to the agreement in question,, like my predecessors I do not think it necessary to lay it before Parliament.

Mr. COCKS: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that he would explain the provisions of the agreement to the House, and that has not been done, would he not place a copy of the agreement in the Library?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has not quoted my predecessor in office correctly. My predecessor said that if the occasion was fitting, if there
was any debate, he would then be pleased to explain its provisions, and I shall be glad to do the same.

Mr. COCKS: Is there any reason for concealment of the terms of this agreement?

Sir K. WOOD: There is no concealment in this matter. I agree with my predecessor; I think it is undesirable that the Post Office should begin to lay agreements to which it is not a party.

Mr. LEWIS: If my right hon. Friend will not lay the agreement, will he consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the British Broadcasting Corporation is acting entirely within the powers conferred upon it in its Charter, in all matters connected with this agreement?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I have no reason to think that that is not so. If my hon. Friend has any reason to think that I should act in the matter, and will give me any information, I will consider it.

Mr. COCKS: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the continuance of the opera subsidy is dependent on the payment of certain sums of money to the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate by the British Broadcasting Corporation, he will state the total amount thus paid to the syndicate up to 2nd July, 1931?

Sir K. WOOD: Under the arrangements made between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate, the Corporation undertook to pay £5,000 for the last quarter of 1930 and £25,000 a year from the 1st January, 1931, in instalments on specified dates. The amount payable up to the 2nd of July, 1931, was £19,500; and these payments have been made.

Mr. COCKS: Were these payments made by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the Opera Syndicate before the money was voted by this House? Was the money used to pay off a mortgage and old losses?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that those questions have been answered, but, if the hon. Gentleman will put them on the Paper, I will look at them and see if I can give him any reply.

Mr. COCKS: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the rent being paid under the lease of the Covent Garden opera house, held by the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate; and, in view of the fact that this lease terminates on 31st December, 1932, and that this involves the continuance of the subsidy, whether arrangements are being made for the renewal of the lease and at what rent?

Sir K. WOOD: The Post Office is not a party to this lease, but I understand that no arrangements have yet been made for its renewal.

Mr. COCKS: When the date comes, will the Government take an opportunity of approaching the British Broadcasting Corporation with the object of bringing this arrangement to an end, as I understand they can legally do at the end of the year?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. Under the agreement, if I remember aright, that is a matter for the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. COCKS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. I asked whether the Government would approach the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to taking action in that direction?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. When this agreement was before the House, the matter was left with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, if there was any suggestion of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has now stated, he ought to have thought of it at the time.

Mr. COCKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWAZILAND, BECHUANALAND, AND BASUTOLAND.

POPULATION.

Major MILNER: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the most recent estimates of the population, native and European, of Swaziland, showing the distribution of the population as to age and sex?

Mr. PRICE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the most recent estimates of the population, native and European, of the Bechuana-land Protectorate, showing the distribution of the population as to age and sex?

Mr. GROVES: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the most recent estimates of the population, native and European, of Basutoland, showing the distribution of the population as to age and sex?

Mr. THOMAS: As the reply to these questions includes a number of figures in tabular form, I will circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

According to the latest information available, which is comprised in the Census Returns of 1921, the population of the three territories was as follows:


—
Bechuanaland Protectorate.
Basutoland.
Swaziland


Europeans
1,743
1,603
2,205


Coloured and Asiatics.
1,055
1,241
450


Natives
150,185
 495,937
110,295

It is difficult to give the age and sex distribution within the limits of a reply, but this informaton will be found in the Census Returns referred to, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House.

NATIVE SCHOOLS.

Major MILNER: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of native schools in Swaziland; the number of boy and girl pupils on the roll during each of the last three years; and the average attendance of boys and girls, respectively?

Mr. PRICE: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of native schools in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; the number of boy and girl pupils on the roll during each of the last three years; and the average attendance of boys and girls, respectively?

Mr. GROVES: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of native schools in Basutoland; the number of boy and girl pupils on the roll during each of the last three years; and
the average attendance of boys and girls, respectively?

Mr. THOMAS: I propose to circulate the reply to these questions in the Official Report, as it consists of a tabular statement.

Following is the reply:


Basutoland,


Number of Native Schools—


1928.
1929.
1930.


532
547
597

Number on Roll—




1928.
1929.
1930.


Boys
…
15,208
13,748
15,861


Girls
…
31,485
29,180
34,582

Average Attendance—




1928.
1929.
1930.


Boys
…
10,879
11,800
11,883


Girls
…
23,548
25,269
25,167

Bechuanaland Protectorate.


Number of Native Schools—


1929
…
90.


1930
…
92 (no later information).


Number on Roll—


Information not available.


Average Attendance—


1929
…
7,000 (approximately).


1930
…
7,500 (approximately).

MIGRANT LABOUR.

Major MILNER: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of natives of Swaziland, male and female, respectively, who left the territory during each of the last three years for labour purposes; the class of labour upon which they were employed; the normal period of absence from the territory; the conditions, statutory or otherwise, under which the labour is recruited and protected; and the mortality rate among this migrant labour?

Mr. PRICE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of natives of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, male and female, respectively, who left the territory during each of the last three years for labour purposes; the class of labour upon which they were employed; the normal period of absence from the territory; the conditions, statu-
tory or otherwise, under which the labour is recruited and protected; and the mortality rate among this migrant labour?

Mr. GROVES: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of natives of Basutoland, male and female, respectively, who left the territory during each of the last three years for labour purposes; the class of labour upon which they were employed; the normal period of absence from the territory; the conditions, statutory or otherwise, under which the labour is recruited and protected; and the mortality rate among this migrant labour?

Mr. THOMAS: As the reply to these questions is a somewhat long one, I will circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

In 1929, 74,762 natives in Basutoland were issued passes to leave the Territory for labour purposes. The corresponding figure for the same year in the case of Swaziland was 12,415; that for the Bechuanaland Protectorate is not at present available. The figures do not show distribution as to age and sex, but it is certain that the great majority who leave the Territories for service outside are young men. The class of labour upon which they are employed consists of service on the Witwatersrand gold mines, the Natal coal mines, the diamond mines of South West Africa and work on farms in the Union of South Africa. The periods of employment vary, but are generally seasonal in character. Legislation exists in each of the three territories governing, in the interests of the natives, tie conditions under which they may be recruited in the territories for service outside. No information is available as to the mortality rate among natives from the three Territories so employed, but there is no reason to suppose that it is heavy or in any way exceptional.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIG INDUSTRY.

Mr. LEWIS: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why the final report of the Pig Industry Council has not yet been published, and when its contents will be made available for Members of this House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy pf the reply I gave on 14th April to a question on the subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Colonel Baldwin.-Webb), to which I have nothing to add,

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Has a copy of this report been made available to the National Fanners' Union?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware whether that is so. It has gone to the Pig Commission.

HARVEST (IRISH LABOURERS).

Mr. EVERARD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people cross to this country annually from the Irish Free State for harvest work; and whether steps can be taken to keep this opening for employment for those permanently resident in England?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Stanley): No record is kept at present of arrivals in this country from the Irish Free State, nor is there any legal restriction at present on the entry of British subjects into England.

Mr. EVERARD: Wall my hon. Friend make inquiries at the ports whether there is not an enormous number of people coming in from Southern Ireland?

Mr. STANLEY: No special record is kept of British subjects, and these Irishmen coming in are British subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AMD COMMERCE.

TREATIES (MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE).

Mr. LEWIS: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the longest period of notice required to effect the cancellation of any of our existing commercial treaties which give the benefit of the most-favoured-nation Clause to a foreign

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my ion. Friend to the Table circulated in the Official Report of 25th November last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), which gives a list of all such treaties and particulars of the provisions for termination.

STEEL HELMETS (EXPORT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an export licence was granted for the shipment abroad of a number of War-time steel helmets recently sold by the War Office; whether such helmets were, in fact, shipped abroad; and what was their destination?

Mr. COLVILLE: Steel helmets are not subject to the provisions of the Arms Export Prohibition Order, 1931, and no licence is required for their export. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third, China.

NEW INDUSTRIES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the new undertakings started, or in process of starting, in Great Britain as a result of the imposition of tariffs are in Scotland; if so, whether he can state the locality; whether any further inquiries have been made by foreign firms regarding sites in Scotland; and whether those inquiries were followed up?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As was stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on 9th June, it is expected that one new undertaking in Scotland will shortly start production. This is in Dunfermline. Since then I have heard of one foreign manufacturer who has acquired a factory in Glasgow, but I cannot say when he is likely to commence production. No other recent inquiries by foreign firms regarding sites in Scotland have come to my knowledge.

Mr. MACLEAN: What do these firms intend producing?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Had the hon. Member desired to obtain that information and put his question on the Paper, I should have been in a position to give him an answer.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will put it down.

RUSSIA.

Mr. CHORLTON: 57.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if, in view of the new trade contracts to be placed by Russia with Germany, he will take steps to see that we get our share of future contracts, in view of the present trade balance?

Mr. COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government will continue in their endeavour to ensure that as great an amount of Russian business as possible is obtained for the export trade of this country.

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. DENVILLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total number of persons of all classes who receive payment for accompanying the Ministers in connection with the Lausanne Conference and the total cost?

Mr. EDEN: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

The staff of the British Delegation consists of 32 persons and the cost of their accommodation and maintenance at Lausanne amounts approximately to £63 a day. The total cost under this head will obviously depend on the duration of the Conference. The travelling expenses-to and from Lausanne will amount to about £435. Of these 32 persons, 29 are permanent officials and messengers who are drawing their ordinary home salaries; three English-French shorthand typists were specially engaged and their salaries amount to a total of £10 10s. 0d. a week. In addition the Secretary-General has a staff of 38, of whom 36 are permanent members of the British Civil Service drawing their ordinary home salaries. One interpreter at a salary of Swiss francs 60 a day and one English-French shorthand-typist at a salary of £3 10s. 0d. a week are being employed. A second interpreter will be engaged if required. The cost of accommodation and maintenance at Lausanne of the Secretary-General and his staff amounts, approximately, to £48 a day, while the travelling expenses from London to Lausanne and back of those who have been sent out will amount to about £460.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. HICKS: 31.
(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Minister of Health the number of persona per 10,000 of population in receipt of Poor Law relief in Sheffield,
Liverpool, Norwich, Gateshead, Manchester, Newcastle, West Ham, Sunder-land, Walsall and Lincoln, for the months ending December, 1931, and March, April and May, 1932?

STATEMENT showing the number of persons per 10,000 of the population in receipt of poor relief (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals) in certain county boroughs on the last Saturday in the under-mentioned months.


County Borough.
December, 1931.
March, 1932.
April, 1932.
May, 1932.


Sheffield
…
…
…
877
989
996
1,017


Liverpool
…
…
…
634
700
709
717


Norwich
…
…
…
561
636
659
675


Gateshead
…
…
…
562
638
657
688


Manchester
…
…
…
583
608
611
630


Newcastle
…
…
…
558
607
622
629


West Ham
…
…
…
483
574
573
589


Sunderland
…
…
…
478
514
515
524


Walsall
…
…
…
384
424
423
443


Lincoln
…
…
…
1,092
667
654
658

Mr. HICKS: 32.
(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Minister of Health the rate in the pound for Poor Law purposes for the years ended 1930–31 and 1931–32 at East and West Ham, Norwich, Lincoln, Sheffield, St. Helens, Nottingham and Bradford?

Mr. BROWN: As the answer involves a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

STATEMENT showing the equivalent in terms of a rate in the £ of the estimated net expenditure on public assistance after deducting all income specifically applicable to the service (e.g., repayments of relief).


—
1930–31.
1931–32.





s. 
d. 
s. 
d. 


East Ham
…
…
4
10
5
1¼


West Ham
…
…
7
4
8
3¾


Norwich
…
…
5
8¾
6
3¼


Lincoln
…
…
5
0½
5
6


Sheffield
…
…
4
11¾
6
2½


St. Helens
…
…
4
11½
5
3


Nottingham
…
…
3
7¼
4
4¼


Bradford
…
…
2
4
3
0

This expenditure was met partly out of rates and partly out of the Block Grant under the Local Government Act, 1929, and other miscellaneous income.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the answer involves a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

RIVER EXE (DREDGING).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will supply a copy of the report of His Majesty's Ship "Flinders," on the estuary of the River Exe, to the Topsham barge owners; and whether he will arrange for a representative of these men to state their case before the conference which is considering this report?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No report has been received of the recent survey by His Majesty's Ship "Flinders," but only tracings showing, if compared with an Admiralty chart, the results of the survey. As my hon. and gallant Friend was informed on 27th June, the object of the proposed conference is to discuss the technical aspects of the survey and the question of allowing dredging operations will be considered thereafter. When that stage is reached, an opportunity will no doubt be given for the barge owners to state their case and the possibility of allowing them to see the tracings in question will be considered.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do we understand that their case will be in no way prejudiced by the conference?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the tenor of my answer.

COAL SUPPLIES (DISTRIBUTION COSTS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the costs of distribution of coal being relatively high compared with those of mining, he will take steps to help to bring about a reduction by the publication of all relevant figures?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the costs of distribution of house coal. The information for which he asks with regard to these costs is published in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925). I am advised that since that date there have been no such changes in the costs of distribution as would materially affect the results shown in that Report.

Mr. BATEY: As there has been no reduction in the cost of distribution since 1925, is the Minister taking any steps to meet the sellers of coal to get them to reduce costs?

Mr. FOOT: The matter is under consideration, but it would involve legislation before any change could be effected.

Mr. BATEY: Has not the Department entered into negotiations with the sellers of coal, and is the Minister now taking no steps?

Mr. FOOT: There have been arrangements in some instances between coal owners and coal distributors. Some of those arrangements have had no material result. As far as the Government are concerned, nothing can be done apart from legislation.

STIRLING CASTLE (GUARD).

Mr. MOREING: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the incident at Stirling Castle on Saturday, 25th June, instructions will be issued to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders to mount a double guard or, alternatively, will he arrange for an English battalion to take over the duty at Stirling Castle?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. I do not think that the incident in question calls for any such drastic action.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the last English battalion that tried to hold Stirling was wiped out in 1314?

Commander MARSDEN: Will my hon. Friend consider that, if a London regiment is seat, a platoon might be sufficient?

WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. MACLEAN: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether at is the practice for an injured worker whose case for continued compensation has been referred to a medical referee to be allowed to be accompanied by a friend when undergoing examination by the medical referee?

Mr. STANLEY: It is within the discretion of the medical referee to decide in each case what persons, if any, shall be allowed to be present at the examination of the workman. I have no information to show how the referees exercise this discretion.

CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES AND BONUS).

Mr. LEWIS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the consolidation of bonus and salaries in the Civil Service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The discussion of this subject on the Civil Ser-vice National Whitley Council has now been resumed, and I hope that a further statement will be possible in the Very near future.

Mr. LEWIS: Does that mean that we shall have a statement before we adjourn for the summer Recess?

Major ELLIOT: I hope so.

REPARATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL DEBTS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many foreign countries, foreign municipal authorities, or British Dominions have failed to meet their normal annual payments for war debts, reparations, or for ordinary foreign commercial debts to the British Govern-
ment, or to large bodies of investors from Great Britain, during the present year?

Major ELLIOT: No defaults have occurred during the present year in respect of debts due by foreign countries or British Dominions to His Majesty's Government; but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, payments falling due in respect of reparation, war debts, and certain other debts, during the year ending the 30th instant, were postponed as the result of the proposal made by President Hoover last year. I have no comprehensive information as regards the market debts of foreign Governments or foreign municipal authorities, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should communicate with the Council of Foreign Bondholders, 17, Moorgate, E.C.2, if he desires information on this subject. Defaults in such cases have, of course, been very numerous. I understand that all normal annual payments

Name.
Solicitor-General. 
Attorney-General. 
Total Fees. 


From
To.
From.
To.









£
s.
d.


Sir F. E. Smith
…
…
—
—
1.4.18
14.1.19
8,482
10
8


Sir Gordon Hewart
…
…
1.4.18
14.1.19
15.1.19
7.3.22
85,164
14
3


Sir K. M. Pollock
…
…
15.1.19
7.3.22
8.3.22
25.10.22
45,196
9
7


Sir Leslie Scott 
…
…
8.3.22 
31.10.22
—
—
4,595
4
0


Sir D. McG. Hogg 
…
…
—
—
26.10.22
24.1.241
73,878
4
9







10.11.24
28.3.28


Sir T. W. H. Inskip
…
…
1.11.22
24.1.24
29.3.28
9.6.29
63,672
17
11





14.11.24
28.3.28
28.1.32
31.3.32 





10.9.31
27.1.32
—
—


Sir Patrick Hastings
…
…
—
—
25.1.24
9.11.24
14,490
5
5


Sir H. H. Slesser
…
…
25.1.24
13.11.24
—
—
3,213
1
6


Sir F. B Merriman
…
…
29.3.28
9.6.29
—
—
10,661 
15
3





28.1.32
31.3.32
—
—


Sir W. Jowitt 
…
…
—
—
10.6.29
24.1.32
36,260
9
8


Sir J. B. Melville
…
…
10.6.29 
12.10.30
—
—
4,9.53
3
6


Sir R. S. Cripps
…
…
27.10.30
25.8.31
—
—
1,798
18
6

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, ROTHERHAM).

Mr. PRICE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the fact that it has been decided to supersede the public assistance authority of Rotherham, and to appoint a person or persons to carry out these duties, and, if so, will he state the reason for this decision. May I also ask the number of

due by the Governments of British Dominions in respect of their market debts have been made.

Sir J. NALL: Have any defaults occurred on public issues guaranteed by the British Government which will cause a charge on the taxpayers?

Major ELLIOT: Not that I know of, but I should require notice of that.

LAW OFFICERS (FEES).

Mr. MACLEAN: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the fees taken in addition to their salaries by each of the Attorney-Generals and Solicitor-Generals who have occupied office since 1918?

Major ELLIOT: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

officials he intends to appoint, whether they will reside in the district—

Mr. SPEAKER: The latter part of the question was not included in the notice sent to me.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer the hon. Member to the letter addressed by the Department to the Town Clerk of Rother-
ham on 17th June, of which, I am sending him a copy. The letter is printed in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 1650-2. A deputation from the Rotherham Town Council was received yesterday at the Ministry of Labour and the whole position is being further considered at a meeting of the council to-morrow. At the request of the deputation my right hon. Friend has agreed to suspend putting his decision into operation until the council have notified him of the result of their meeting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make about business for to-morrow, and what business he proposes to take to-night if the Rule is suspended?

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to to-day's business, the Rule is suspended

Division No. 260.]
AYES.
[3.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Cowan, D. M.
Greene, William P. C.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Grimston, R. V.


Applin, Lieut.-Col, Reginald V. K.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsh'ro)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Apsley, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Curry, A. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hales, Harold K.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Denville, Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Harbord, Arthur


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorka., Skipton)
Dickie, John P.
Harris, Sir Percy


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Donner, P. W.
Hartington, Marquass of


Blindell, James
Doran, Edward
Hartland, George A.


Boulton, W. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duckworth, George A. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duggan, Hubert John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Duncan. James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Briant, Frank
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horobin, Ian M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Borks., Newb'y)
Elmley, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest


Buchan, John
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine, Lord (Weston super-Mare)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Essenhigh, Reginald Clara
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Carver, Major William H.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Castlereagh, Viscount
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romt'd)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jennings, Roland


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ker, J. Campbell


Christie, James Archibald
Gibson, Charles Granville
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kimball, Lawrence


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Knight, Holford


Colville, John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Cook, Thomas A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Cooper, A. Duff
Graves, Marjorie
Law, Sir Alfred

only to ensure securing Report and Third Reading of the Sunday Entertainments Bill and the Second Reading of what is a purely formal Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill. With regard to to-morrow, the first Order will be, as already announced, consideration of the Motion relating to the East India Revenue. Then we purpose taking the remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill, British Museum Bill, Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill, Agricultural Credits (Mortgages) Bill, Solicitors Bill, Carriage by Air Bill, and Lords Amendments to the Children and Young Persons Bill. If there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions" of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 37.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Leckie, J. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Lees-Jones, John
North, Captain Edward T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Nunn, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Levy, Thomas
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lewis, Oswald
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Liddall, Walter S.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Patrick, Colin M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Pearson, William G,
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peat, Charles U.
Storey, Samuel


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pybus, Percy John
Summersby, Charles H.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sutcliffe, Harold


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsden, E.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ray, Sir William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McLean, Major Alan
Rea, Walter Russell
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Martin, Thomas B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Robinson, John Roland
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Millar, Sir James Duncan
Rosbotham, S. T.
Weymouth, Viscount


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ross, Ronald D.
White, Henry Graham


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw.
Rothschild, James A. de
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Womersley, Walter James


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Moreing, Adrian C.
Sandeman, Sir A. N, Stewart
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Selley, Harry R.



Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Nall, Sir Joseph
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
George Penny.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
John, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Groves.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Nottingham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Hove Pier Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member

from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Rating and Valuation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]): Colonel Gretton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Clarry.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL

Order for Consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee) read.

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the new Clause—("Provisions as to Cinematograph Fund")—which I understand the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is about to move, is in order on two grounds? First of all, it fails in one of the canons of new Clauses in that it is not self-contained. You will observe that the third line refers to conditions imposed "under the last foregoing section." There is no foregoing section, and it presumably refers to some Clause in the Bill which we are going to discuss later on, and therefore is not sufficiently lucid to be admitted as being in order on the Report stage. I understand that the Government attach considerable importance to this Clause, but it does not follow that it is in order.
The second ground on which I ask your Ruling is that I submit the Clause is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The Title of the Bill is to:
Permit and regulate the opening and use of places on Sundays for certain entertainments and for debates, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The Title is supplementary to the main purpose of the Bill which, as the Short Title says, is for the purpose of dealing with Sunday entertainments. This new Clause has nothing to do with Sunday. It is to set up a Cinematograph Fund
for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.
Therefore, I ask, with all respect, for your Ruling on two points, (1) That the Clause is not self-contained, and (2) that it is not consonant with the Title of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, if the Clause is accepted and added to the Bill, it will then be put in its proper place, in which case it will be in order. With regard to the second point, I do not think there is anything outside what is already in the Bill
in the (suggestion made in the Clause. We have already had the suggestion made that certain funds should be given to charity. It is a new idea, and in some cases novelties are an advantage.

Captain CROOKSHANK: With all due deference, I agree that novelty is great fun, but the fact that this is new does not necessarily bring it within the ambit of the Bill. It does not come within the Title, and the Government have not put down any Amendment to the Title. Surely, there should have been an Amendment that one of the objects of the Bill is the setting up of a Cinematograph Fund, but as there is no such Amendment on the Order Paper, and it is too late to put one down now, I submit that the Clause is out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not mean to infer that because it was new it was therefore in order. I said that that was an advantage to it. In regard to the other point which the hon. and gallant Member raises, I do not see that the Clause is outside the Title of the Bill. It seems to me to be quite in order.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: In Clause 1 (b), provision, is made for a distribution of a proportion of profits.

Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE. —(Provisions as to Cinematograph Fund.)

(1) There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a fund, to be called the "Cinematograph Fund," and all sums paid to an authority in accordance with conditions imposed by them under the last foregoing Section for the purpose of being transmitted to that fund shall be so transmitted at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.

(2) The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund shall be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.

(3) The accounts of the Cinematograph Fund shall be audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Privy Council, and his report thereon shall be laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Perhaps I had better remind the House of the history of this Clause. When the Bill was considered by the House on Second Reading one of the hon. Members for the Scottish Universities made some reference to the advisability of improving the standard of films in this country by some type of film institute, or public body of that kind. Several subsequent speakers referred with approval to that suggestion, and in the concluding speech of the Debate I pointed out that that seemed a suitable topic for discussion by the Standing Committee to which the Bill was committed. When the Standing Committee considered the Bill an Amendment purporting to carry out that principle was put down in the name of an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Hull, but that Amendment was drafted in such a form that, quite apart from any discussion of the principle involved, its form rendered it unacceptable to the Government and the Committee. It provided, for instance, that the whole of these moneys when collected should be given to a film institute, which at that time was not in existence. No provision was made for modification of the proportion which was to be paid, or for cessation of payments if the institute should be wound up or if its work proved to be a failure. In these circumstances and in view of the practical effects of the Clause, it was clearly impossible that the Committee could come to any decision on the underlying principle.
I think hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever view they may take on the Amendment, will agree that it is a matter of considerable importance. It raises a question of new and it may be far-reaching principle, and it is one that my right hon. Friend thought that not only the Committee but this House ought to be able to discuss on its merits alone without being hampered in any way by any defects of drafting and machinery. Therefore, he gave a promise to the Committee that if the suggested Amendment were withdrawn he would submit to the House on Report a Clause designed to carry out the principle, with machinery adequate for the task, and in a form which would allow the House of Commons to come to a plain decision as to whether, as a matter of principle, it was a good thing to do or not.
Before I explain to the House the actual machinery which it is proposed to set up, I had better add a few more preliminary words. It is true that this idea, although it is very germane to the matters discussed in the Bill, is not essential to its operation. It would make no difference to the main object which the Government have in view in regard to the opening of Sunday cinemas whether or not this Clause was included. It is for that reason that I am authorised to say that the Clause will be left to the free decision of the House and that the Government Whips will not be put on either for or against it. I am not a great supporter of free votes, but I think this is one of the occasions where they can be justified. In normal cases when Amendments are put before the House, probably quite correctly, hon. Members are loth to grant the Minister in charge any superiority of wisdom, but they are usually prepared to assume that he has superior sources of information, and they therefore accept from the Government an indication of the way that they are expected to vote. But here we have a matter in which the Government have no advantage either in wisdom or in information. This is admittedly an experiment and each hon. Member is as capable as another of making up his mind on the facts as we know them, whether he thinks this is an experiment that should or should not be undertaken.
The machinery which this Clause and the consequential Amendments to Clause 1 will set up, is simple. A fund called the Cinematograph Fund is to be founded and placed under the control of the Privy Council. The Privy Council is selected because that body already deals with such subjects as medical and scientific research, and a fund of this kind is of an analogous character. The fund is made in this manner. The Home Secretary will prescribe a certain percentage of the amounts which the various local authorities decide have to be given by the cinemas to charity. That prescribed proportion of those amounts will instead of being paid, as the other 95 per cent., or whatever it may be, by the cinema proprietors to the charity, will be paid by them to the authority, who will forward it to the fund. I want to make it quite clear that the 5 per cent. which is referred to whenever this idea is discussed is a maximum and not a minimum.
All that it means is that the Secretary of State cannot prescribe a bigger percentage. Within these limits he can prescribe any percentage he desires, or none at all.
There is this safeguard in this proposal which was not in the original suggestion, that if at any time the House, before whom the orders will have to be placed, decides that the experiment has failed, that there is no body doing work of sufficient value to entitle them to receive these sums, then simply by the Secretary of State no longer prescribing a percentage the income of the fund ceases and the experiment is brought to an end. The details which the Secretary of State may prescribe will have to be laid before Parliament and, of course, on the Home Secretary's Vote it will be possible for Parliament to discuss them. The money paid into the fund is paid out under the supervision of the Privy Council for the purposes stated in the Clause. Hon. Members will agree that the machinery is simple, and I need hardly add, in view of the fact that there is no Financial Resolution, that it will cost the Government nothing. Whatever expenses there are will be borne by the fund. The House, therefore, will be able to come to a decision on the question of principle involved and the value of this experiment without regard to any more detail. That completes my task as far as the Government are concerned. The matter will be left to the Vote of the House, and although the hon. Member attaches great importance to this Clause even if it is defeated it will not in any way affect the main purpose for which the Bill was introduced.
I feel that the House will allow me to say what are my personal views on this matter without in any way committing the Government. I feel that the chance which is now offered to the House for beginning a work of this kind is one which will certainly not recur for many years, and it is, therefore, a matter which ought to be more carefully considered than the hasty way in which the idea has been received in some quarters. Although its advantages may be somewhat vague, no one can deny there may be a great deal of good in it and, therefore, before, the House dismisses the proposal they should give it their most earnest consideration. It is a balance between known disadvantages, and advantages which are to some extent
speculative. The disadvantage, of course, is that the money up to 5 per cent. has to be paid by someone, it has to come out of somebody's pocket, and there seems to be a certain difference of opinion between the opponents of the Clause as to whose pockets it will come from; some say it will come out of the pockets of the cinema proprietors, and others that it will come out of the pockets of the hospitals. I saw a letter in the "Times" to-day from the General Secretary of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, a most eloquent letter, displaying the most proper feelings for the effect which this might have on hospitals. In a concluding paragraph of great intensity, he says:
To put 5 per cent. Income Tax on the moneys which the hospitals receive from this trade in order to create an unnecessary body will be one of the meanest and most pettifogging actions that have ever emerged from the House of Commons.
That is a most unselfish statement, and I confess that I should attach greater importance to it had I not heard only yesterday that, taking advantage of what they believe to be a flaw in the present temporary Act, the cinema proprietors of London have decided to reduce their contribution to charities by 25 per cent. That can be remedied, of course, when the Bill becomes law. But leaving aside that kind of humbug, which does not seem to me to help their cause in any way, let us take the matter on a frank basis. Cinematograph proprietors have a perfect right to complain if 5 per cent. of their profits are taken for an object which they think is valueless, on which the money is going to be wasted, and, if they put it in that way instead of their anxiety for the hospitals, they would present a case which they are entitled to present, and which would (have to be met. I do not think it is any good supporters of this Clause arguing the fact that this percentage is to come not from the cinema proprietors but from the charitable objects. In terms which are becoming all too familiar in international conferences, local authorities will fix their contributions according to the capacity to pay, not the capacity to receive. They will fix them knowing what they think the cinemas can afford, not what the local hospitals would like to get; and they will not alter the amount because 5 per cent. or 1 per cent. is going not to their local hospital but to some outside body.
Those who support the Clause have the conviction that this money will be at the expense of charitable objects. Here again, grave as is that objection, we must also avoid any appearance of hypocrisy. Over 200 Members of Parliament voted against the Second Reading of the previous Bill, which would have had the effect of depriving hospitals, not of 5 per cent. of this revenue, but of the whole of it, and I have constantly been urged by those who oppose the Bill not to listen to the charitable argument, because it has nothing to do with the matter. Putting everything else aside, it comes to this: Is the money raised in this way to be spent to the value of the nation? If it is given to hospitals we know that it is going to be well spent. If it is to go to this fund, then we have to make up our minds whether we think it is going to be well spent or not. If we think that this small sum is going to achieve even partially some of the objects which some people believe may result from the formation of a film institute, then apart from any other consideration, we should agree that it is well worth spending the money on that experiment.
4.0 p.m.
During the course of this Bill I have had to deal time and again with the question of censorship. I have been told that the main objection of the opponents to the opening of cinemas on Sundays is the type of film shown. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is one of the really honest opponents of the Measure, who bases his objection on that ground. I have always held the view that censorship is not a way by which you can improve the standard of anything, by which you can eliminate abuses, prevent obscenities, things that grossly offend public taste. No negative restriction is ever going to improve the standard of taste. If this idea works at all, you have at least an attempt to deal with a matter, with which we all want to deal, by a positive and not a negative approach. I see that this Clause is talked of as if the idea of the film institute was purely educational, to try to make everybody go to goody-goody films. If anyone takes the trouble to read the report of the committee who suggested the institute, it will be seen that their idea is quite different. It is one which,
I think, commends itself to everybody, that whatever the cinema is going to give, if it is merely pictorial representation, if it is educational or tragedy, comedy, or romantic drama, at least let it be the best of its type. I, thank Heaven, have one of the lowest brows in this House. If I go to a cinema, taking a short, and by the Whips unsuspected, respite from my Parliamentary duties, it is not to go to a scientific film; it is to go to a good knock-down comedy.

Mr. GROVES: You can stop here for that.

Mr. STANLEY: We had better wait until the hon. Member's turn comes on. The trouble is that the ordinary cinema proprietor has fixed as the standard of taste throughout the whole world what is, I believe, technically known as a "hick" from a Middle Western American town. I happen to believe that the standard of taste in this country really is considerably higher, and that the ordinary—not the West End, but the East End—audience in London appreciates things for which, perhaps, the ordinary hick does not very much care. The question is whether the formation of an institute of this kind can do something to enable the public to get the films which, I believe, they are quite ready to see. At the present moment the supply which is given to them is based on what was believed to be the public taste several years ago. I believe that the public taste has progressed since then, and that it would, in fact, support films of quite a different character. How can this institute secure it?
There are, no doubt, a number of producers who are perfectly ready to give to the public that kind of film if they are quite certain that there is a market available for them, and at the present moment, in the ordinary commercial cinema, they are not. It seems to me that the growth of public taste, the growth, therefore, of a sure demand for good films, and therefore the growth of the production of good films, depends largely on the extent of the Film Society ideal, the knowledge that all over the country there are a number of people banded together, regular film goers, who are prepared to pay to go and see a better type of film. Even if a failure in the big commercial theatres, it still has an assured value in these centres which
are growing up. It seems to me that one of the chief roles of the institute would be to act as a link between this demand springing up, between the different organisations throughout the country and the producers who, otherwise, would have no possible means of communication with them, and these people could go to the producers and say, "If you can produce a film of such and such a type, we can guarantee you an audience which will appreciate it, and the financial return will be sufficient to safeguard you from loss." The development of those two ideas is a subject more for those who will speak later in favour of the Clause and who have closer and more intimate knowledge of it than I have. I throw this out as a broad outline of the main duty which, I think, devolves upon an institute in the future—a duty which, I think, must become of the greatest importance, and may lead to a real improvement in the standard of the film.
In conclusion, I would ask hon. Members to remember that if they reject this Clause there is no opportunity of doing anything again; the idea, good as it may be, is definitely put aside. If it is accepted, and we subsequently find that we are wrong, that these film institutes have no value, that money spent on them is money wasted, the remedy is perfectly simple: you can, at any moment, stop the supply of money to this fund, dry up the fund, and the whole experiment comes to an end. Hon. Members are given the choice of testing the thing in practice before deciding whether it is good or bad, or of dismissing hurriedly, once for all, in the course of a few hours' Debate, an idea long developed in other countries—in Germany, for instance, where, we must admit, the standard of film production is considerably higher—without giving any real chance of deciding whether it is right or wrong by seeing it work.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member and myself in Committee upstairs had many combats on this Measure. It is not my intention, however, to engage in battle with him this afternoon on this Clause, but I think that I am entitled to ask him a few questions as to the intentions of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman has given us to understand this afternoon that reports of everything which this new body will do will be laid before Parliament. Before I put the first ques-
tion to him may I say that we have passed other Measures in this House from time to time and have been promised that reports and statements of accounts shall be laid before Parliament. We have later, however, found to our dismay, that although the reports and accounts may be put before Parliament and published in Blue Books, we are never entitled to discuss their contents. I, therefore, want to have an answer to the fundamental question: Will the operations of this body and its accounts be subject to debate in the House of Commons when they are issued? It is not sufficient for my purpose, with our experience of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Betting Control Board, to say that these reports and accounts Shall be laid before Parliament. I want to know definitely, shall we be entitled to discuss the work of this new body?
It is true that the Committee upstairs had this subject before them, and we discussed it in a general way. I am very pleased, indeed, that the hon. Gentleman and his Department have placed the ideas we then discussed upstairs in a concrete form in this Clause. I have this one complaint against the hon. Gentleman. He has accepted this very important proposal from his own side, but he has never accepted any suggestion however valuable that I have ever made to him on this Bill. I did, however, induce the Home Secretary in Committee to accept one or two suggestions I made, and I have no complaints to make on that score. I must, as did the hon. Gentleman in part of his speech, make it clear that I am speaking on my own responsibility this afternoon. I am not speaking for my party, but I am hoping to attract the most intelligent Members of my party to agree to everything I have to say. The hon. Gentleman makes it clear in the proposed new Clause that a new body is being set up, and the other question I want to put is this. He spoke of a film institute, and all Members of the House of Commons have received that very valuable report of the film institute. I want to ask whether the money collected under the Clause is all to be paid over to the film institute, or whether part of it is to be paid to the film institute and some of it to any other body? I cannot very well conceive that one body alone in this country is going to attain the particular object which the hon. Gentleman
has in view. Somebody has put in my hand a very glowing account of a proposal that is to be subject, I think, to the recognition of the cinema trade itself. I have here a document with a picture of an enormous institute to be established somewhere in London. It is called the Peoples' Cinema University. If this cinema university is established, is part of this money going to that university as well as to the Film Institute?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Who is the principal of the university?

Mr. DAVIES: I am coming to that. What I want to know is whether this financial proposal which is now brought forward is intended solely for the film institute? I am not, so far as I can see now, opposed to this Clause, but I would like to get some answers to the questions I have put and to one or two more before deciding how to vote. The hon. Gentleman will see the inequality of this proposal. It is a tax on Sunday takings only, and not on the takings on any other day. It is, in fact, a tax on the takings on Sundays in London and just a very few other places in the country. That is to say, the vast majority of the people in this country will contribute nothing at all to this tax, and I think that is a serious inequality.

Mr. STANLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote against the charitable contribution on the same grounds?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman must not at this stage ask me a question of that kind. I hope that he will allow me to pursue my argument, because with the little legal mind I possess I must use it to the best advantage. The point I wish to put is this: Is it not right to say that this is a tax upon the cinema industry in London and a few seaside places in England and one or two, I think, in Wales?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these are given special privileges, and why should they not have to pay?

Mr. DAVIES: I do not want to pursue that point either just now.
The next question I want to put is this: Who is going to appoint the new body? Will the Home Office or the Privy
Council appoint? I remember the Betting Control Board. Five Government Departments appointed representatives to that Board. Then there were the appointments to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The new body which is to be set up under this Clause is very much akin to the British Broadcasting Corporation. It will probably not have the same amount of revenue, but it seems to me that the object of the Government is very much the same. There is a tendency to set up these bodies, to transfer the power of Parliament to outside authorities, to let them do just what they like, to let them issue reports, and then when Parliament wants to know why the body does this or that we are told that we cannot raise the subject at all on any Vote in this House. That is a point that must be watched.
I have not decided against this proposal. I shall be astonished if any Members of the House, whether opposed to this Bill or for it, are not anxious that the tone of the films shown in this country should be improved. If any suggestion of mine is of any use at all I should be delighted to see a great change in some of the films produced recently, a change in favour of depicting working-class life instead of always depicting the superficial life of the luxurious rich. Films like "Hindle Wakes" depict working-class life and are better pictures than those which show the silly things that the rich people of this country do on occasions.
The Under-Secretary has not told us anything as to the amount that is likely to be received from this tax. It has been suggested that it may amount to £8,000 or £10,000 per annum. Are we not right in believing that if a local authority is to say that 5 per cent. of the profits that are determined upon must go to this institutional work, that it rather suggests that the cinema proprietors will not want to open on Sunday at all? They may object to this tax altogether, and that consequently what we may do by passing this Clause is to achieve the very object that I have had in view all the time, and that is to close the lot on Sundays. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten us on that issue. The object of this new Clause is really a good one, and apart from the details I have suggested, and
my many questions, I am inclined to do anything I can to raise the standard, quality and tone of films in this country.

Mr. BUCHAN: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) in any speculations about the details of permanent organisation. I do not think the time is yet ripe to be dogmatic about them. But I would like to join my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in asking the House to sanction an experiment which may do a great deal of good, which can do very little harm, and which is very safe because if unsuccessful it can so easily be brought to an end. I feel that this whole discussion is rather prejudiced by the use of a most unfortunate word, the word "cultural." I am not quite sure what it means, but I know what it suggests to myself and no doubt to many other hon. Members. It suggests priggishness and intellectual snobbery. It suggests the efforts of the highbrow—another horrible word—to impose his exotic tastes on the ordinary man. In plays and books it suggests the kind of production which is either too dull or too indecent for the average citizen. Unfortunately the report of the committee on which this proposal is based was compelled to use that word for lack of a better one, but what that report proposed and what this new Clause tries to give effect to has nothing on earth to do with the highbrow.
The proposal is simply for the creation of some kind of central machinery to assist in the development of British films, to form a kind of staff college for the study of technique, a clearing house for knowledge of ideas, and to help to exploit the very great assets for film production which we believe Britain and the British Empire possess. Surely there can be nothing faddist or pedantic about that proposal. Most great industrial organisations have attached to them some kind of staff college or intelligence department, whose business it is to study new processes and to explore new markets. It is quite true that those are private organisations, privately arranged, and the reason why for the film trade a slightly different and more public type of organisation is proposed is that the film already enters into so many departments of public life and has so great a propaganda and educative
influence that no Government can afford to neglect it.

Earl WINTERTON: May I interrupt merely to get some information? A large number of us who are in general support of this Bill have very grave doubts about this proposal. My hon. Friend used the expression "We." Is he referring to those who reported from this Committee, or has he in mind some body already in existence? It is very important that we should know. He said that it was only an experiment. Who is responsible?

Mr. BUCHAN: I had no business to use the word "we," except in the editorial sense. I simply mean those who, like myself, are interested in this proposal. I think I can understand most of the objections raised to the Bill. I can understand, indeed I can very largely sympathise with, those who object to the whole principle behind the Bill. I can appreciate, but I do not agree with, the arguments of those who want to see the same privilege given to the theatre. I can understand, though I do not agree with, those who would have no levy on the Sunday profits of cinemas. But assuming that the points I mentioned are settled and become law, and that decision upon them is final and irrevocable, what possible objection can there be: to the proposal of this new Clause?
I have done my best to inform myself about possible objections from a reading of the Official Report of the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and from a study of the Press. So far as I can gather the general idea seems to be that this proposal is unjust to someone. To whom? To the theatres? It may be an injustice to theatres to exclude them from Sunday performances, but this does not touch theatrical funds. Unjust to the cinema? As I understand it, this Measure is an attempt to regularise a condition of things which has grown up over a number of years, and to make that legal which without it is illegal. This practice of making a levy on the proceeds of Sunday cinemas for charitable purposes has gone on for a number of years. Surely if you regularise and legalise one part of the status quo you are entitled to regularise another part? Besides, the cinemas are being given preferential treatment compared with other forms of entertainment, and it seems only fair that
they should pay something for that privilege. But, in any case, how can it be unfair to exact a small proportion of the profits which already have gone from them, which have already been earmarked for public purposes, and to exact that levy for the purpose of fostering their own interests?
We are told—I have read it in the Press —that the cinema trade does not want this proposal, that it is altogether opposed to it. I should be very doubtful about that. I can understand one branch of the trade, the exhibitors, being very little interested in it. After all it does not concern them, or it concerns them only indirectly. The exhibitor may use a British or French or Russian or German film. All that interests him is that it shall fill his house. But the British film producer is surely in a very different case. It is vital to him that he should be assisted to produce films of a quality which will enable him to capture a large share both of the British market and of foreign markets, and to raise the standard of home production to that high level which I believe it is perfectly possible for him to attain. I feel that those in the cinema trade who attempt to throw cold water upon this particular proposition have a lack of confidence in their own profession; they under-estimate the immense importance of what they are doing, and are blind to the triumphs which may await the British film industry if behind it there is organised the intelligence of the country.
Finally, we are told that the proposal is unjust to the hospitals. The proportion of the proceeds of the Sunday cinemas does not now go wholly to the hospitals. It is shared partly among other public services. I am familiar with a successful nursery school, in a very poor part of London, which is very largely financed by its share of these proceeds. The hospitals are a great charity and a great public service, but is it unfair to the hospitals, seeing that they already share these proceeds with other public services, to ask them to share with still mother public service which to my mind is not less important than the others— the attempt to raise the level of something which has become a vital part of our daily life?
4.30 p.m.
That, to my mind, is the final argument in favour of this new Clause. The in-
terests of the cinema trade, the theatres and the hospitals, are all secondary interests. The major interest is the interest of the British public. In recent years we have seen two novelties which have become an integral part of our daily life—wireless and the films. The first is controlled by a semi-public body, the British Broadcasting Corporation, over which as a last resort Parliament has a certain control and guidance. The second has no such guiding hand, and yet the second is not less important. To my mind, the film is by far the greatest educative power in the country to-day. It is the most powerful engine for propaganda, it is a marvellous platform for the dissemination of ideas, good or bad, it has an incalculable effect upon the growth of taste and the training of every class and of every age. Surely, if we have so powerful an engine, it is our duty to try to bring to bear upon it, in its development, the best knowledge and intelligence of our people.
All that is proposed, as was said so lucidly by my hon. and gallant Friend, is a central machinery whose purpose shall be to bring knowledge and intelligence into the development of the film industry and to watch over its larger interests. All that this new Clause proposes is to find the initial financial backing for such machinery. Clearly at present it is impossible to go into details about that machinery. Its exact nature has still to be determined, and in such determination the Government and this House will, of course, have a voice. That, very roughly, is the case for embarking upon this proposal. I would ask, in conclusion—

Earl W1NTERTON: May I ask another question? Do I understand that it is proposed that the constitution of this body should be laid before the House?

Mr. BUCHAN: I understand so. As far as I know, nothing has been settled except the principle of central machinery to be created with the help of this fund. I would make one final appeal to the House to consider this point. What is the alternative if you allow things to go on as they are going on to-day? There will very soon be a cry for a drastic censorship of the films. I can see it growing. I am perfectly certain that that demand will grow so that no Government will be
able to refuse it. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I am no believer in censorships. They are feeble and foolish things at the best, and, remember, if you have any kind of censorship, you will be really at the mercy of the cultural faddist. Surely the wise course is now, while there is still time, to take steps to make any kind of censorship unnecessary by helping the production, within Britain and the Empire, of films of the highest quality in every type and in every class, and by educating the public taste to appreciate and demand them.

Mr. LOGAN: I did not intend to speak on this Clause, but after the few remarks of the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) I have my doubts as regards its character. I am at a loss to understand its nebulous character and the inferences that one may draw from the remarks of the preceding speaker on the question of censorship. There is nothing in the Clause in regard to censorship, and I am most anxious to know, from a business point of view, if the industry on its own is not able to understand what it really needs and not able to cater for the class of people that require to see the films. If research work is required, one would naturally expect that a well organised body should be able to do all the research work that is essential and to carry on its own business, knowing that the public will certainly not go to see films for which they have no liking and that if they are not up to date in perfection they will lose their business.
After listening to the rather ambiguous remarks of the two preceding speakers, one can only infer that this is something that is about to come into operation where somebody with a cultural mind sees an opportunity, without paying anything, of being able to get either from the film producers or from the hospitals money which can be used for experimental purposes. There is no responsibility on this cultural body. What it is, the Lord alone knows. I imagine that a legitimate trade like this will certainly resent busybodies who, from the educational standpoint, want to come along to deal with what is recognised to-day as a legitimate industry. I do not know any walk of life in which busybodies would have the right to come along, from the cultural point of view, and say, "We wish to set up a supervision or a censorship to introduce to the
British public our particular view with regard to films" without any financial responsibility.
This particular body want special privileges. They want the power to take money from someone, and they are not prepared to back their views by financial obligations of their own, but they come along and tell us, according to these rather nebulous proposals, that a wonderful day is coming to England. What body is this? It is not stated in the Clause, but there is a lot in the Clause that we want to know something more about. I am as anxious as anyone for a proper supervision of films, for a nice amusement where I can get proper entertainment for my children, where they will be able to see clean films, but another department should look after that particular business. It is rather a strange policy to give preferential treatment to certain people to set up, in a legitimate business, something which is absolutely foreign to it and which has no right to be introduced as an eleventh hour consideration.
Every Amendment, from the religious point of view, from the point of view of work, from the point of view of everything attached to legitimate cinemas, was amply dealt with, but this proposition was brought along in a very easy-going fashion. It was produced as an afterthought and brought in as though it was something beautiful to illustrate the wonderful power of the cinema in regard to culture. If it means supervision of the film, if it means censorship, why is it not honestly stated? We were told that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) used the word "we" in an editorial sense, but the word "we" was used in the first place as though some people had sat down to consider what they thought ought to be introduced into the Bill. I am fully convinced that this legitimate trade wants no interference, and if there be those of an educational turn of mind who think the legitimate film is not giving what they require, those educationists ought to be able to back up their opinions and find that research department that is so necessary for cultural opportunities.
I believe that the English mind demands clean and healthy films. I believe that Press censorship and business men will see to it that in the course of time this trade will be bound to provide
healthy films, but in the name of common sense can any British House of Commons say that a legitimate industry in which much money has been invested cannot look after itself? I have nothing in cinemas, but I want to know in clearer terms what particular body it is which makes this demand and what power it will have over this legitimate trade, I believe the Lord President of the Council will be the head over this particular privy purse, and that it will be handed out to everyone, not one, but two, three, or four, who may be able to do great research work, but there is nothing in the Clause as to the question of how the money will be spent being brought before this House. They will have special privileges, just as the British Broadcasting Corporation have, and while you must make grants, you are to have no power to consider how the money is to be spent. I do not believe that this House should be asked to pass this Clause, whether for cultural reasons or otherwise. We ought to have something more than the editorial "we" before this proposition is accepted.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I wish to express my strong support of this Clause. I could not help wondering, while listening to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), whether he had yet found time to read the very admirable report to which reference has already been made, which was compiled by a large number of people of authority and influence, who arrived at a unanimous conclusion. I regard the inclusion in the Bill of such a Clause as this as calculated to convert what is necessarily a somewhat makeshift piece of legislation, introduced to deal with an anomalous situation which has arisen over a course of years, into a definite and constructive Measure that may have a far-reaching importance on the life of this country. I fully agree with the Under-Secretary of State that if the present opportunity of doing something is lost, it may not recur for a great many years, and it would be altogether deplorable if we did not seize this opportunity, and attempt in some way to control the great national and international force which the cinema has become and direct it into channels which may be definitely useful to the nation and the Empire. Mere censorship is certainly not sufficient. All that any censor can do is to lay down a number of more or
less hard-and-fast rules and declare that if these are infringed a licence will not be granted. Censorship in its nature is purely restrictive, but this is a definitely constructive proposal. It is an attempt to educate and improve public taste with regard to the class of films shown.
Everyone must realise that public taste in this respect is deplorably low—very largely, I believe, because it is not afforded much opportunity to be otherwise. I think the almost unexpected success attained by certain films of a higher intellectual value than the average shows that there is a public able to appreciate better-class work if it is given to them. Even the Under-Secretary confesses that at present his taste in cinema entertainment is somewhat low and that he prefers knockabout comics. I would not despair that, with time, even the taste of the Under-Secretary might be raised to some extent. The fact remains that we are to-day almost alone among the nations of the world in having made no effort of this kind and in having no authoritative body that can undertake research work in connection with the cinema—because, in spite of the enormous progress made during the past few years, it is still true to say that the cinema is very largely in its infancy. We have no authoritative body which can provide a clearing house for information affecting the production of films and film work generally in this and other countries, and constitute a connecting link between the public and the trade.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, it is not merely the views and interests of the trade that we have to consider in this matter. There are also the views and the interests of the public. The hon. Member suggested—I do not know whether it is a fact or not—that there was no evidence that the trade wanted this proposal, and he appeared to consider that a conclusive argument against the proposal. I do not regard it as such in any way.

Mr. LOGAN: What I did say was that it was the legitimate business of someone else to deal with the question of censorship and with the purity or otherwise of these films and not this body.

Sir G. RENTOUL: As I understand it, this body would have nothing whatever to do with censorship. This proposal has
no relevancy to the question of censorship. This would be a purely constructive body which would assist, not merely in the ways I have mentioned, but also in the production of films of a more intellectual kind, and help to improve the general technical efficiency of the industry. Surely it is 'an argument which ought to carry some weight that most other countries have found it necessary to set up an authority of this kind and that such bodies have been working in other countries with very valuable results. It must be admitted that the general level of film production in those countries is considerably higher than it is in this country at the present time. I believe there is evidence that the institution of such a body would be welcomed by the public and I believe it would also be welcomed by that section of the industry directly concerned with the production of films.
I think hon. Members must be a little impressed by the almost universal chorus of approval given to this proposal by the Press of the country following on the publication of the most interesting and valuable report, already mentioned. This Bill provides an opportunity for taking a much-needed step in the right direction. Obviously, anything in the nature of a grant from State funds would be impossible at the present time, but the suggestion now made is that of a small levy —and it is only a very small amount—on these Sunday profits, which would provide the fund necessary if this great and, as I believe, far-reaching experiment is to be tried. The argument has boon put forward, and no doubt will be emphasised later, that this Clause is tantamount to robbing the hospitals. I confess that, to me, that argument has a very curious sound. The hospitals have no vested interest in the profits of the cinemas. They have, as I see it, no justification for expecting such contributions as a matter of right. In point of fact the hospitals will still get very valuable assistance even if this small deduction is made for a purpose of immense public importance— nearly as great importance from many points of view as the work of the hospitals themselves. It is left to the local authorities to fix the percentage and to arrange the matter on an equitable basis. The Under-Secretary rightly pointed out, and I think the fact ought to be emphasised, that if the opponents of the Bill had their way it would not be a case
of depriving the hospitals of a small percentage but a case of the hospitals not receiving anything from this source.
I wonder how many hon. Members have found time to read through the report which has, I understand, been supplied to all Members and have done so with unbiased minds. It appears to present an unanswerable case in support of the Clause. Various alternatives are put forward in that report as to the kind of authority or body that should be set up. That matter will have to be considered and discussed further. As I have said, I regard the Clause as one of the most important features of the Bill and I much regret that the Government have decided to leave it to a free Vote of the House. The Under-Secretary disclaimed any superior wisdom but said that in most instances the Government possessed superior information and that that was their justification for putting on Whips. I believe that this is a case in which the Government do possess information superior to that possessed by most Members of the House. I think the proposal raises a vital question of principle on which the Government ought to have made up their minds and put on the Whips, one way or the other. The Government ought not to shirk responsibility for dealing with a question of this kind, but, in spite of that decision, which I regret, I hope and believe that the majority of hon. Members when they think over this matter will appreciate its far-reaching importance and I hope sincerely that the Clause will be carried by a substantial majority.

Captain LODER: I rise principally to challenge one or two remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). He seemed to suggest that this proposal was simply an effort on the part of several busybodies to interfere with the legitimate activities of the film industry. I do not think that he has any justification for making such a remark. This is not a proposal to confer special privileges on any particular body. It is only a proposal to set up certain machinery which the Government can use, if they see a fitting opportunity of doing so. It is quite obvious that no body or institution of any kind would be likely to receive any percentage of these moneys which it is proposed should be paid into the fund unless that body
was so constituted and run, as to be approved of by all those interested in film production. I think that is a sufficient guarantee that such an institution would only receive these moneys if it was in a position to do really good work.
The House before it adds this Clause to the Bill should have clearly before it the arguments both as to the necessity for some kind of separate organisation to deal with the film industry in this respect, and also the particular way in which it is proposed to finance that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) has put forward some closely-reasoned arguments as to why there should be an institution of this kind but one point which seems to have escaped previous speakers in this Debate is the fact that there is a very big demand for such an organisation. That demand is reflected in the report to which my ton. Friend has referred. Some time ago there was a conference at which a number of very important bodies were represented, including such bodies as the Royal Society, the British Association and many teaching and educational bodies, in addition to certain trade organisations. It was decided that an inquiry was necessary into the future of the films and the result of that inquiry is this report. I do not think that this House ought to reject the results of those labours without very careful consideration. As my hon. Friend has said anybody who reads that report must find it exceedingly difficult not to come to the conclusion, that some kind of central institution to look after the future of the film industry is necessary.
5.0 p.m.
As to the way in which it is proposed to finance such a body, of course there are two alternatives. You can either have a body financed out of Government funds or one financed out of private funds. I do not think that anybody at the present time would be in favour of public money being paid out for such a purpose as this. On the other hand, not only are there difficulties in the raising of private funds for such a purpose at the present time, but there is also the objection that any body which was entirely supported by private funds would be in danger of getting into the hands of particular interests. For that reason it
would seem that the particular method proposed in the Clause of financing such an institution, has special advantages. I hope that the House will consider this proposal very seriously. The House appreciates the manner in which the Under-Secretary put forward this proposal, and we should all recognise that behind his studied moderation there was the feeling that the proposal was a good one. We have the additional assurance that, as this Clause was drafted by the Home Office, it is also a workable proposition.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have listened to every word in the Debate, and I have not heard the word "Sunday" mentioned, and nothing has been said that links up this proposal with the Bill for the Sunday opening of cinemas. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary took objection to my thinking that the Government attached some importance to this new Clause. He said that that was not quite the right way of putting it, but I see the Home Secretary's name attached to it and I cannot conceive anything that he fathers not being of extreme importance, There was nothing in the Under-Secretary's speech which was by any stretch of the imagination an argument for this, proposed Clause being put into the Bill. It may be very desirable that there should be such a fund, and it may be desirable that films should be censored. Lots of things are desirable, but this Bill deals with the opening of cinemas under certain conditions on Sundays. If it is such a great thing to be able to contribute to this great object of purifying the film life of the country, why should not the cinema goers on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday be given the inestimable privilege of paying a small contribution towards it?
Apart from that, this new Clause is completely nebulous. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) admitted it. He said that the nature of the new machinery was still to be determined. The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) said that various alternatives are under consideration. But what the House is considering is a Bill which, before a month's time, has to become an Act of Parliament or there will be chaos with regard to the whole of the Sunday question. Therefore, it is not really good
enough on the Report stage to come and say that certain things may happen and that the scheme may be controlled by Parliament or it may not. The money which this institute will have under its control, however, is to be raised by local authorities for a national purpose. I put it to the House that that is, as far as I know, a considerable innovation on the usual practice. It is unusual, to put it mildly, to give local authorities the power to levy taxation for a specific national purpose. It is generally held that the House of Commons is the only body that can raise taxation and that they do it on national grounds. Here, however, it rests entirely with local authority A or local authority B to decide whether or not it wants to make a contribution from people who go to the cinemas in their particular areas towards this apparently most desirable purpose. I cannot find it in my mind to agree that that is the way to legislate.
I am reminded that a considerable number of years ago, at the time of the South Sea Bubble, one of the many projects which raised a large sum of money was entitled "A project of great utility to the nation to be hereafter divulged." That project raised an enormous sum of money and the promoters bolted. This scheme is very much of that sort—a trust in the good faith of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities who is entirely responsible for this proposal. It is apparently, on his good faith that the House is to give the Privy Council this great, power. The Under-Secretary rather thought it humbug on the part of the cinema proprietors to object to this new Clause—

Mr. STANLEY: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will represent me correctly. I said that it was legitimate for them to object to the proposed Clause on the ground that it cut into their province, but that it was humbug to object to it on the ground that it took money away from hospitals when they proposed to reduce their own contributions by 25 per cent.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is quite right, but I had not finished my sentence. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, and if I did so I apologise to him. As a matter of fact, I should say that they were right in that belief, because a lot of this money may
very well go back to them. It is left to the Privy Council to apply the money in such a manner as they may direct for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph. One can conceive them going to the extent of subsidising certain films, and they might pay certain firms money in order to show certain films which they thought would be entertainment and instruction. It is therefore possible that money may come back into the industry as a result of the proceedings of the Privy Council, whereas it is also quite true that money must be diverted from the hospitals if the new Clause is passed.
I ask again, what this has to do with the Sunday opening of cinemas? If it is such a good idea, let us have a separate Measure and deal with it on its merits; let us say that all cinemas shall contribute at all times, and let us say that there shall be a grant from the State, if you like. Incidentally, the State does do something in the cinematograph world. It has a cinema officer under the Empire Marketing Board whose job is to direct the production of Empire films. There is, therefore, a nucleus already in existence possibly unbeknown to many Members of the House. If it is a good thing, let us do it, but why should we ask the people who choose to go to cinemas on Sundays to contribute to this fund? Is it because they are doing something on Sundays? Is it a sort of little extra tax on them for doing something which some people think they ought not to do? Is it to be a principle that everything that is done on Sundays is to make a little contribution from its profits for some other better purpose? Are our restaurants which open on Sunday to raise a little sum out of their customers for the improvement of British cooking? Are the newspapers which we read on Sunday to have to pay a little extra tax so that they can be encouraged to entertain and instruct us? Is it really to be supposed that that is the way to tackle this sort of problem? Perhaps the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities might like a little royalty on his books to go to some institute of a nebulous character for the Production of better and more entertaining books.
This scheme is so absolutely divorced from the subject which we are supposed to be discussing that I can hardly find sufficient words to express my annoyance
that our time should be taken up with it. The question of the Sunday opening of cinemas is of great importance, because we know that legislation has to be passed very soon or there will be chaos, but, as the Under-Secretary said, it does not matter to the Bill whether the Clause is passed or not. I hope that the House will not be rushed into adopting an entirely new system of allowing the local authorities to raise money in an entirely novel way for an entirely unknown purpose. There is no explanation in the Clause as to how the fund is to be administered and controlled by this House. Do not let us be rushed into passing a new Clause which has nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I rise to support this proposal and to try and explain something about its genesis. I have great sympathy with those who have opposed the proposal on the ground that it is nebulous, that no one knows what this institute is to be, the relation it will have to the Government, and so on. I have sympathy also with the criticisms that have been made, and if I came entirely new to the proposal, I think that I should adopt the same attitude myself.
What is the history of the proposal? Some time ago a number of people who were interested in the extension of the use of films in this country for school and educational purposes, for instance, started the idea of a film institute which would act, as the Under-Secretary has described, as a kind of central research institute for the improvement and promotion of films. The natural thing for such a body to do would be to get into touch with the film industry and get the industry to support such a central body and to contribute towards it. They did make some efforts to get into touch with the industry. They have had behind them and supporting them many gentlemen who have an interest in the industry. If hon. Members will consult the report, they will see that they had on the committee representatives of the film section of the Federation of British Industries. It is quite true that they have not succeeded in getting the film industry as a whole, or any considerable section of it, to identify themselves with the proposal for a central film institute. That is perhaps not very much to be wondered
at. Other industries which have wished to promote arrangements for central research have been obliged to ask Parliament to legislate for a levy on the industry, and the cinema industry is certainly less organised and has less unity than either the rubber industry or the cotton industry.
I admit, and it is fair to say, that the gentlemen connected with this enterprise have not succeeded up to now in getting the film industry as a whole to take up their proposals. They have, on the other hand, proved by their work that they are not outside busybodies trying to establish a censorship, but that they are seriously anxious to promote something that will be of benefit to the film industry and the public. The gentlemen interested in this proposal have for years past been trying to get the support and recognition of the Government, either in an official or unofficial way.

Mr. KNIGHT: Other groups have had the same purpose for years. This report is the end of the story.

Lord E. PERCY: I do not quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Report is no doubt the culmination of a long movement, but in the course of that movement there have been many approaches to Government departments, but the difficulty has been that the Government departments concerned were unable to provide the financial support which was necessary. It is not any good for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) to say that the educationists concerned—whoever they may be—should provide their own money. After all, we cannot stipulate that no one shall take an interest in the development of the film industry in England unless he is a rich man and prepared to put up money. Frankly, when the Sunday Entertainments Bill came up last year these gentlemen saw an opportunity of getting finance without coming to the Government. They thought they had at least as much right to some of the finance as the hospitals. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asks why we are discussing this subject on a Bill dealing with Sunday entertainments,, seeing that it has no particular relation to the subject. The reply is that we have identified this proposal to license Sunday cinemas with the placing of a tax upon
the cinemas concerned to the extent of claiming the whole of their profits for charity.
We have introduced in connection with, and solely in connection with, Sunday a proposal to tax cinemas, and it seems to be perfectly logical to say, "If you are going to tax cinemas, let us devote a part of that tax to something which will directly benefit both the cinemas themselves and the cinema goers." That, at any rate, is more logical than this proposal to give it all to the hospitals. That, then, is the genesis of the proposal. It is perfectly obvious that gentlemen, however distinguished and however interested, however much they may have proved the value of their work, cannot come to this House and say, "We are the great panjandrums of the film industry, and we want to arrogate to ourselves a subsidy out of the takings of cinemas on Sundays." On the other hand,, how are the Government to say to these people, "We do not know whether the House of Commons will agree to give you any support or finance at all, we do not know whether we can give you any sort of official recognition, but, for the purpose of coming to the House of Commons with this proposal, we must dictate to you what is to be the film institute of the future"? That would be equally unreasonable.
Therefore, although the Government have brought forward this proposal in a nebulous form I do not quite see how they could have done anything else. A certain amount of bitterness and ridicule has been engendered by this Debate. Of course, it is quite easy to pull any such proposal to pieces; it is easy to find debating arguments like those put forward by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division; but I am only anxious lest the House of Commons should show itself not only unsympathetic, but definitely hostile to a movement which has in it the germs of something extremely useful and valuable. The House is entitled to say, "This is too nebulous for us," or, "I am from Missouri and seeing is believing," as the expression goes, and it is a convenient occasion, of course, for having a hit at the Government for always being too nebulous.
While it is easy to act in that way, I hope the House of Commons will not do anything this afternoon to destroy something which, however nebulous it may
be, is at least sufficiently advanced, developed and crystallised to show that it has within it the possibilities of an extremely useful movement, and that all that is required is just that amount of Government sanction and recognition which will crystallise it into a form which will be approved by this House and public opinion in general. I am sorry I missed the first few sentences of the speech of the Under-Secretary, but I hope that, if he has not already done so, he will be prepared to give an undertaking that this fund shall not be formed, still less that any money shall be paid out of it, until the House of Commons is fully informed of the definitive constitution of the body to which the money is to be paid. If that is done I suggest to the House that they should look away from the perfectly valid debating arguments brought against the proposal, and should do what this House has so often done, the practical but slightly illogical thing in a sphere of operations where practical and constructive action is necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to oppose this Clause. I listened particularly to the hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) to see what case he could make out for it, and I have every sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in his objections to the Clause. This is a Bill dealing with Sunday entertainments, including debates, and although the establishment of a film fund for the development of the industry and to ensure that British films are given their proper place may be quite a good thing, I cannot see what connection it has with a Sunday Entertainments Bill. On many occasions we have discussed the development of an industry. When the Labour Government held office in 1924 we discussed, at the instigation of a private Member, whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the rubber and the cotton industries to set aside sums of money for the development of their industries. That was a proposal that one could well understand. Let it be noted that under those proposals all inside the industry had to make a contribution based on their ability to pay, bearing some relation to their profits.
What is the proposal here? A cinema has to make a contribution not according to what it may earn or may not earn, but
according to what the attendance may be on a particular day of the week. A cinema may have excellent attendances on six nights of the week and may choose not to open on Sunday, in which case it will make no contribution towards the development of British films. It is only laid under contribution if it indulges in this fearful vice of Sunday opening. I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). He says, in effect, "Yes, Sunday opening is a shocking thing, but We will take money from this shocking thing in order to educate the British public." In the case of the totalisator what was it that made many of our Labour people quite honestly and sincerely oppose it? It was not that it was a bad thing, but many of them thought that as it was money that was wrongfully raised it was indefensible to use any of it. As I have pointed out, a cinema which makes excellent profits on six days in the week and does not open on Sunday will pay no contribution, but another cinema which does badly on the six days and opens on the Sunday and does well on that day because the others are then closed, will have to make this contribution. There is no sense of fairness or logic in that.
I would not have spoken to-day if it had not been for, I will not say the cheek of the hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities, but his courage in putting forward this proposal. The English cinemas are to make a contribution towards Empire development and culture, but the Scottish cinemas are to pay nothing, because this Bill does not apply to Scotland. Why should we ask the English people alone to make a contribution to the development of an industry which, if it is to be developed, ought to be developed in Scotland as well as in England? Further, may I ask the House to consider the question of Parliamentary control? I could understand arguments for a film censorship, but where has this Clause anything to do with film censorship? Can anyone show me any word in this Clause bearing on that point?

Mr. BUCHAN: I particularly explained that I regarded this as a proposal which might prevent a film censorship.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let us see who the body are who are to undertake this work. I could understand it if we were setting up a body of people who understood film work to provide for the future development of the film industry—people who knew something of the industry, who knew something about the common people, and, who could combine the various interests; but what earthly relationship has the Privy Council to such a body? Members of the Privy Council are not appointed because they know anything about cinemas. They may have been appointed because they were good statesmen—though in many cases they are there because they were bad ones—they may have been appointed because they were fine ex-Ministers, or because they possessed various other qualities, but not because they had anything to do with cinemas. We say that you should have planned out the industry with the fund that the cinema people are using to develop the film industry in order to see that it was properly run. I would have examined the proposal in order to see that the committee appointed understood the interests of the common people. There is nothing like that. I am sorry to raise this somewhat technical objection, but there is no place where this Clause is to be inserted in the Bill. It talks about the "foregoing section," but I do not know where it comes in. It has no definite purpose. The whole thing was drafted in a fashion creditable to none of its supporters. The Bill was carried by a small majority in the House, but every concession has been given to those who opposed the Bill, and one would almost think they were the majority. This concession also pleases certain elements that were opposed to the Bill. [Interruption.] Yes.

Mr. STANLEY: In no way has there been a concession.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will leave that. Let me take the other point. Here is a Bill that has no relationship to Parliamentary control. I suggest that the Conservative party should take notice, and see that there is some sort of Parliamentary control. I do not mind when Governments are pressed by terrible economic problems and they depart from Parliamentary control, as
we know they sometimes do because of the terrible forces working behind them, but when it comes to Bills like these I ask Conservative Members to pause and think where we are going. What Parliamentary control is left? It is quite true that the Secretary of State has certain powers to issue regulations, but there is no power, so far as I can see under these regulations providing that before they can operate they must lie on the Table of the House and receive sanction. I have looked over this Clause, and it may well be that this country may set up a censorship. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities talked about the cinemas getting preference, but that is only partly true. The cinemas are getting preference as the result of this Bill, but they do not get preference over other kinds of Sunday sports. Sunday dog racing and Sunday football are quite legal when people are prepared to take part in them. Baseball is legal. The cinema, in relation to the vast majority of sports, has no preferential treatment at all.
Whatever good there may be in this proposal as a means of education, I think the method of tackling it is entirely wrong. It is taking powers outside Parliament, and is setting up a body which is unfitted, which has no qualifications to do the work. If the cinema trade is t6 undertake research work and development, it ought to be levied on the theatres that do not open on Sunday as well as upon those that do open on Sunday. That obligation ought to be levied in the North of Ireland and in Scotland alike, and should not be based on attendance on one day per week.
Hon. Gentlemen say that this proposal will lake money from the hospitals. I would vote for the Bill for the opening of cinemas on Sunday whether it provided for a contribution to the hospitals or not. I believe that the poor people should have the right to attend Sunday cinemas. I cannot see why we should place a levy on Sunday cinemas any more than upon hon. Members who play golf. We might put a levy on them for the improvement of British golf and to bring it up to the American standard. That might be all right. I would vote for anything that takes people out of the slums and away from shocking conditions, even for two hours a week, to see another kind of life, even if there
were no contributions to the hospitals. We have to decide to-day whether or not there is to be reduction in the amount of the contribution to the hospitals, and my choices unhesitatingly in times like these would be to give the maximum sum to the hospitals.
The people who have to pay for the development are not the cinema industry and the cinema attenders, but the hospitals of the country. The Scottish cinemas and those in the North of Ireland pay nothing, nor do those that do not open upon a Sunday. There is only one section that pays and that is the hospitals. The Government have decided that the hospitals shall receive a contribution, and the choice before us is whether the hospitals shall receive less in order to foster and develop this proposal. There are many ways to tackle the matter, and the proper way is to have a levy according to the capacity of the industry to pay. Let us have that levy and see that the board which is set up understands the work. Do not relegate this question to the Privy Council who have never gone into this matter and who were not brought into being to do this work. To take money from the hospitals for this purpose is committing a gross abuse of Parliamentary control.

Mr. LAW: It is evident from the course of the Debate that there are in the minds of hon. Members two main objections to the proposal that has been made by the Under-Secretary. On the one hand, there are those who say that the establishment of a board would be (harmful, that its maintenance would be a burden upon the film industry, and that in its function it would be inexpert and interfering, and merely futile. On the other hand, there are those who may favour the principle of the new Clause, but who are adverse to it being put into affect in this particular way, because they do not want the hospitals to be deprived of the revenue of which they are so badly in need. But the hospitals, however much we are determined to help, have not a vested interest in Sunday cinemas. The purpose of the Bill is not to help the hospitals—that purpose was only incidental—but to regularise an irregular situation and to meet what the House considers to be a legitimate public demand. If the House thought that Sunday cinemas were not wanted it would not be willing to legalise
them in order to benefit the hospitals. In the same way if the House considers that this proposal is valuable in itself, and that it may have some effect in improving the standard of the films, and improving the immense influence of the cinema on the minds of the people, it ought not to refrain from supporting it for fear of taking away a very small proportion of what is, after all, in the nature of a windfall for the hospitals. If the House decides that the Measure is of value, that ought to be the main consideration which should sway us in our votes.
The other objection seems to me to be more formidable. If hon. Members believe that this proposal is likely to become a burden upon the industry, as many of them seem to fear, they ought to reject it. I believe that the objection of hon. Members on this point are based upon a misconception. There is one point I want to bring before the House. The film industry is not so much opposed to this proposal as some of us would have supposed from reading sections of the Press. If I may do so with all humility, I would suggest that it is possible to take these newspapers a little too seriously. I worked for some time on a newspaper, and I know very well that if it is the policy of a newspaper to take a certain line it is perfectly easy to find someone somewhere who will support that newspaper on that account. It is easy to pay too much attention to the various interviews in the Press purporting to come from the cinema industry.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) told the House that the members of the film industry who were represented on the Commission made a recommendation that a fund should be established, and I would like to call the attention of the House to one further consideration which has not yet been brought forward this afternoon. There is a trade paper in the cinema industry, "The Daily Film Renter," and it has a very considerable circulation. On the morning on which the report of this Commission appeared it came out with a leading article which recommended the adoption of the report in terms which were almost enthusiastic. I should like to read a few lines from that article:
The idea of a film institute, crystallised by the report of the Commission on Educational and Cultural Films, has much to re-
commend it. There is a great deal of work which can be done by a semi-official body such as this. The influencing of the film industry by the direct intervention of the Government would be resented, and would in any case be open to grave abuse. This work can be done much better by a National Film Institute with official recognition, but without final authority.
That is the opinion of an influential journal in the trade. It is true that it is not the unanimous opinion of the trade, but it is an opinion which carries some weight, and therefore it encourages us to assume that the proposal is not anathema to the whole film industry. If we consider the possibilities of the Home Secretary's proposal, I think it would be definitely to the benefit of the film industry if it succeeded in raising the taste of the public and extended its interest to the enormous number of people who to-day look down on the cinema and do not go to it. As a result, it would develop an entirely new market for cinemas, which obviously would be to the benefit of the industry. If this institute were able to stimulate the demand for educational films, it would obviously create a great demand in the industry, not only for films, but for projecting apparatus and all the equipment of cinematography.
In this connection, I would like to mention to the House the experience of one other country where a film institute was set up. In 1920, the French Government set up a similar sort of body, with the rather formidable title of Musée Pedagogique. This body was set up in order to try to encourage schools in the use of films in their ordinary curriculum, and one of the things that it did was to start a film library for the purpose of lending films at reasonable rates to any schools that wanted them. In the first year of its operation, 1920, this film institute library rented out 54 films. That was not very much for a start, but next year the number went up to 3,000, and in 1929, the last year for which I have the figures, the number of films rented out by the institute to schools was 44,000. That is an immense development, and the whole of the French film industry benefited very much from this development in the sphere of educational films.
I should like to say one word on the general principle of the Clause which we are discussing. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—I am sorry not to see him
in his place at the moment—asked what was the need for an institute of this kind for films, seeing that we have not one for cooking, books, and various other forms of gastronomic or intellectual activity. The answer is that in most other fields of artistic endeavour there is some form of central body to which people can go for advice and assistance when they need it, but in the cinema world there is no such body in existence to-day. Another argument that I would use is that no other form of art exerts such a powerful influence for good or for evil as does cinematography. It exerts a tremendous influence upon the character of the people, and, if we reject this proposal today, I think we shall be taking upon ourselves a terrific responsibility, for we shall just be saying that we will make no effort to regulate a form of art which, perhaps more than any other, perhaps more than anything else in the life of the people of this country, will affect their characters and minds, and probably, ultimately, their whole future. For these reasons I support most heartily the proposal which has been put forward by the Undersecretary to-day.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the attractive review that he has made of the general principles of this Clause. It has already been made plain that the Government are taking up a neutral attitude on the matter, and my only purpose in rising is, not to attempt any survey of the discussion which has taken place, but to attempt to clear away in a few sentences one or two misapprehensions which seem to have arisen in the course of the Debate. Several hon. Members have expressed anxiety as to the nature of the body proposed to be set up under this Clause, and as to the complete absence of any Parliamentary control, I can assure the House that the answer in respect of both these apprehensions is that they are entirely unfounded. In the first place, no body is proposed to be set up under this Clause; and, secondly, there will be ample opportunity for Parliamentary control.
As regards the first point, the Clause merely embodies a decision to set up a fund. That fund is to be under the administration of the Privy Council. It
will be for the Privy Council, subject to the review of Parliament, to say to whom, through whom, and in what particular way that fund shall be applied. If there is some body in existence which commends itself to the Privy Council in regard to the application of the whole or part of the fund, well and good, but no body is being set up under this Clause. So far as Parliamentary control is concerned, hon. Members will notice that in the Clause there is a reference to regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. I understand that the position will be that, so far as those regulations are concerned, any discussion about them could take place on the Home Office Vote, while be far as the administration of the fund, and even of the accounts, is concerned, discussion could take place on the Privy Council Vote. The analogy of the cases instanced by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), of the Betting Control Board and the British Broadcasting Corporation, is inexact, and for this reason, that those bodies, each of which administers a particular object— the totalisator on the one hand, and broadcasting on the other—are not themselves responsible to Parliament nor is there any Minister who actually answers for their administration. In the present case, the Privy Council is responsible for the fund, and, therefore, would be answerable to Parliament.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Suppose the Privy Council decided to give £5,000 of this money to the film institute, shall we be entitled in this House to criticise the manner in which the £5,000 is spent by the recipients, and not merely to criticise the gift of the £5,000 as such?

Earl WINTERTON: May I also ask my hon. and learned Friend a question? He rose rather unexpectedly, and I have a number of questions that I want to ask him, but I would like to ask him this question now. Could he not, in supplement of what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, tell us whether the actual administration of this institute will be under the review of this House? In other words, shall we be able to discuss it, or will it be in the same position as the British Broadcasting Corporation, which, as is notorious, we cannot discuss?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am very much obliged to the Noble Lord and to the hon. Member for Westhoughton.
That was the very point that I was trying to explain to the House. As I understand it, there is no doubt that the House will be able to discuss the administration, because, as I have already said, we are not proposing to set up any body which will have delegated functions, and whose activities, therefore, cannot be discussed in Parliament, as in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation. On the contrary, what we are doing is establishing a fund which will be under the administration of the Privy Council, with no delegation to any other extra-Parliamentary body. Of course, no one can give an undertaking as to what would be the Ruling of the occupant of the Chair on any given occasion,, but, subject to that, I think it must be perfectly plain to us that the whole administration of this fund and any regulations made in connection with it will be open to review by the House of Commons.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has made the position very clear, and I have some further questions to ask which I hope may be answered by some other Member of the Government. I am speaking only for myself, but I believe I am right in saying that the greater number of those, in whichever quarter of the House they sit, who supported the Government in Committee on this Bill, are opposed to this proposal. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am interested to hear those assenting cheers. I think it will be in order to mention the circumstances in which this Clause was brought forward in Committee. An Amendment was moved, and, greatly to the surprise of many of us, the Home Secretary, no doubt with a desire to be pleasant to everyone, announced that the Government were going to accept the principle of the Clause. I want to make it plain to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary that I am not in any way blaming him; he was committed by the somewhat gratuitous offer or promise of his official chief; and I would like to thank the Government, on behalf of the supporters of the Bill, for their action in leaving this matter to an open vote. I hope that those who support the Bill will not support this Amendment.
We have had some very interesting speeches, notably one from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull
(Mr. Law); and I think it would not be out of place to mention, if I may be allowed to do so as an old Member of the House, that I noticed that my hon. Friend, like a very distinguished person of his name in this House, possesses the ability to deliver a considerable speech without the use of a single note. My hon. Friend's speech was an admirable one, if I may be allowed to say so, on the theory of a film institute, but it really had not much to do with this particular Amendment, because what we are concerned with is not the theory of a film institute. It may be right or wrong in theory. I can imagine people who think like my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—I am not speaking satirically or sarcastically—and others, who in theory would be in favour of a film institute, but that is not quite the point that arises here. The point is whether this proposal is a good one constitutionally. I think it is a very dangerous proposal, and I am very doubtful about it from a constitutional point of view.
What is it that the Clause asks the House to do? It asks the House to insert in an Act of Parliament a provision which will impose an irregular, but nevertheless binding, taxation upon a certain industry. I use these terms deliberately, because it is a form of taxation, and it is a binding form of taxation, but it is a very novel form of taxation. What other industry has ever been asked to submit to a tax which is not going to be given to the local authority or to the State, but which is to be applied to a certain purpose which has not yet been defined or discussed? My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) used the word "we," which no doubt would give the impression that this scheme had been cut and dried and was prepared, but, when I challenged him, my hon. Friend said that he was only using the word "we" in an editorial sense. I do not know what he meant; as far as I know he is not an editor; but it appears that the scheme has not been prepared; it appears that there is no scheme for us to discuss at all; and yet we are asked in this Clause to impose on a particular industry a tax for the purpose of applying money to a scheme which is not yet even in existence. I think that that is a very dangerous thing. I would ask the
House to note the actual words of the Clause. I submit that seldom have more nebulous words been brought before this House at any stage of any Bill.
There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a fund, to be called the 'Cinematograph Fund,' and all sums paid to an authority in accordance with conditions imposed by them under the last foregoing Section for the purpose of being transmitted to that fund shall be so transmitted"—
I ask the House to note these words—
at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.
We have been asked to pass a good many curious provisions in recent years, but I have never before heard a Tory Minister bring forward a proposal to supply money for the purpose of being transmitted to a fund, to be
so transmitted at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament,
6.0 p.m.
If that is not a leap in the dark, I do not know the meaning of the words.
I should like to ask the Government a few questions about the conditions, so far as there are any, that they propose to lay down. I understand, from what my hon. and learned Friend has just said, that the constitution of this new body, when it is set up, will be discussed by Parliament. [Interruption.] If my hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to correct what I say, I do not wish to press him, although it only needs a simple answer, "Yes" or "No." If the constitution of this new body and its administration are going to be discussed by the House, it will be a body controlled by the House. Is it the desire of the Government that there should be set up an institute to control the film industry? I rather gathered from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities that that was the intention of those who are behind the scheme. He said that, just as the British Broadcasting Corporation control broadcasting, he would like to see the screen controlled. Is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to take the matter a step further? I understand that I was not wholly accurate in my assumption that the constitution and the administration of the fund would be able to be discussed in the House. I should like to ask my hon. and learned
Friend some more questions. It will be no use his taking the high and mighty attitude that some who are in favour of the idea have taken that all these matters are to be discussed in the future.
The Government are making themselves partly responsible for this. We want to know what they have in. their minds. Is this institute to have compulsory powers? Is it going to say to the film renter, "You shall show only this film," or "You shall not show that film," or is it going to have advisory powers? Is it going to produce films itself, or is it going to subsidise films which have already been produced? What is the form of control that is to be adopted? Is it not extraordinary that, on the day on which we are discussing a Bill concerned with the Sunday opening of cinemas, a very important proposal in theory, though nebulous when it comes to be explained, should be brought forward?
I should like to say a word about the body itself. As far as I understand what is at the back of the mind of those who are in favour of it, I think the idea is rather grandmotherly and rather bureaucratic. I am not much impressed as to what happens in France. The French have a, different attitude from ours.

Mr. LAW: They make much better films.

Earl WINTERTON: They may make better films for the British public, but it is questionable whether they make better films for the French public. I have seen French films for which the hon. Lady sitting below my hon. Friend would not care much, though they are very suitable for France. Are the promoters of this idea right in thinking it necessary or desirable to have this sort of instructing or controlling authority? After all, it is true of the film industry as of everything else that is provided for the public at large, that the public is given what the publics wants. Those who have spoken in support of the idea seem to ignore the fact that there have been dozens of educational and so-called cultural films produced, and, from the box office point of view, they have been a dead failure. How does my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings propose to get over that difficulty?

Lord E. PERCY: My Noble Friend might have heard my speech before answering it. Nothing he is saying has any relation to what I said.

Earl WINTERTON: My submission is that there have been provided films of a very different character from the ordinary everyday gangster film and, unfortunately, there is a limited public for them, and they are not a box office success. We have an honest, shrewd, tolerant, good-humoured, unintellectual, inartistic, urbanised democracy. I will give an example to prove the truth of what I say. If there was this intense desire for culture and education, people would buy the "Times," the "Morning Post" and the "Daily Telegraph" in the same numbers that they buy the more popular papers. The reason they do not is that they do not want culture or education. They want to read the news as they get it in the popular papers, and, for the same reason, they want to see the popular films that they see on the screen. If there was this public to be afforded culture and education through the medium of entertainment, opera would be a success, and there would be no demand for jazz, but everyone knows that the contrary is the case.
We are confronted with the proposal to educate the public. The method of educating the public should not be by means of this Bill, because you are mixing up two entirely different things. This is not a Bill for the purpose of educating the public, but for giving limited facilities for cinemas to be opened on Sundays, and it has been understood that, when those facilities were granted, such of the money as was set aside, apart from what the proprietors of the cinemas are entitled to put into their pockets, would be given to the hospitals. Speaking as the chairman of a hospital, although we have never suggested that the cinemas should be opened merely to benefit the hospitals, because that is not our business, we have said that, if money is going to be set aside, it should be given to the hospitals and not to other bodies.
Finally, it is most dangerous that money should be given through the agency of the Government, because it will be in effect Government money. It is taken in the form of a tax from the cinema industry, paid into the fund, to be doled out by the Privy Council. It is
most dangerous to give money for the purpose of subsidising anything unless you are quite clear what you are going to subsidise. I should like to give an example. I can well imagine that this new film institute might say it would be an excellent thing to exhibit a film of the work of the League of Nations; in fact, I believe it has been done on a small scale. They produce such a film. It is shown. One could make it very interesting. We could have the speeches of all the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, past and present, at all the conferences that have been held since 1918, and lastly, in the educational part, you could have the exact results of those conferences. You could have the Commission arriving at Manchuria, and, for lighter relief, you could have the famous game of golf between M. Briand and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the famous incident when Lord Curzon was so unlucky as to lose his trousers at Lausanne.
If you produced a film of that kind, serious, except in its light parts, what would happen? I am judging from what has happened in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Inevitably, and quite rightly, the Navy League would come forward and ask for permission to have a picture produced showing the work of the Navy League and the work of the Navy, not answering the League of Nations film but showing the other side of the picture. The answer would be, "We cannot do that. We are taking Government money. This is a political matter. The League of Nations is in an entirely different category. You are asking us to use public money for a political purpose." Bodies of this kind, partly subsidised by public money, are a thing which should not be lightly encouraged by the House until we have all the facts and know all the circumstances. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us far more definite information than any of the back bench supporters of the proposal have given, but I hope, whatever information he gives, the House will be careful before passing even the principle of this Clause, because, to my mind, it is not an integral part of the Bill which we have been discussing. It is not a necessary concomitant to Sunday opening, and it would have a prejudicial effect on insti-
tutions which many of us have very much at heart—the hospitals of the country.

Mrs. TATE: I rise to oppose the Clause, but not altogether on the same grounds as the Noble Lord. Some of us have a very intense interest in the class of films that are shown, and I think we should deplore it if, by going into the Lobby to vote against the Clause, we were considered as not having that interest and desire for a better type of film being shown to the public. But, if the cinema is such an important educational element as it unquestionably is, and if it is imperative that something should be done to improve the type of films that are shown—I believe there is a very urgent need for that—surely you cannot say you are justified in taking the money for the improvement of the films simply from charitable institutions, which is what the Clause in effect does. The Under-Secretary himself has said it will not be the cinemas that will pay. It will be the hospitals and the charitable institutions. Also this fund will be, in effect, nothing more or less than a subsidy. I think we ought to ask ourselves what it will be a subsidy for. I think there is a very real danger of it being nothing more or less than a subsidy for dull films which no one really wants to see.
I do not agree with one or two hon. Members who have said that there is no demand for better films in this country. I do not think that a film need necessarily be a cultural film in order to be a good film. I have seen many films which are known as "Mickey Mouse" films which have a tremendous and a very wholesome interest, not only for children but for older people, but I have never yet heard a "Mickey Mouse" film described as being a cultural film. The Under-Secretary has said that he has a low-brow taste in films, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) has said that he hopes to improve the taste of the Under-Secretary, but I do not think that the House is justified in giving a subsidy to improve the taste of those people who enjoy good films which cannot at the same time be called cultural films. That a subject as serious as the improvement of the films of this country should be dealt with simply by robbing the charities which benefit from Sunday opening, or should
have any connection whatever with Sunday opening, would, I think, be a. very deplorable and an entirely unjustified experiment for this House to sanction.

Mr. J. JONES: I happen to represent a constituency where the issue as to the kind of films to be shown either on Sunday or any other day has never been raised. We have always allowed, as far as we have had an opportunity as a licensing authority, the cinemas to open on Sunday evening. We cannot understand why those who play golf, or tennis, or go boating on Sunday should object to the ordinary working men having an opportunity of enjoying themselves in a reasonable way on the same day. I oppose the Clause, not because I object to the control of the industry, but because I object to the piecemeal methods of the Clause. If it is necessary to levy a special tax for the purpose of improving a particular industry, you cannot stop there. The provision ought not to be tacked on to a Bill dealing with a special industry, but should be laid down as a general principle to be applied to all industries.
The cinema industry is comparatively new. I can remember the time when the only picture palace in my division was a little corner shop. We had to pay 2d. to enter, and there was very little room to sit down when we got inside. Still, we saw the pictures as well as the small space would allow. Now we have great picture palaces all round the neighbourhood, and we are able to see some of the best pictures, in spite of what was said by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I was sorry to find him quarrelling with his Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). It reminded me of the proverb that when noble lords fall out honest men come by their own. As far as we are concerned, we have improved the pictures. The pictures of 20 years ago used to entertain the people of my division, but those pictures would not be looked at to-day by the same people. They want better pictures. They have been educated by experience. What was good enough for our grandfathers is not good enough for us. We ought to have a little more trust; in the common people. Trust in the common people is gradually being brought about by educational methods, not only inside the cinema, but outside.
When a lad of 16 years of age I had not the same facilities as my boys now enjoy. My enjoyment was of a different kind from theirs. They have developed more than I developed, and can do things I could never do. Some of the things which they do I shall never be able to do—I hope not, anyhow.
I ask hon. Members, if they are desirous of dealing with an issue of this character, to do so in a straightforward manner. Bring it forward as a definite act on its own. If you are going to improve the cinema by this kind of arrangement, there are many other industries which require improvement even more than the cinema. All our main industries might be improved by this levy principle. If the Government would separate the Bill from this particular part of it, they would get almost a unanimous vote from the Members of the House. Are we really going to improve the cinemas by this method? On one side of London they will not have cinemas on Sunday, and on the other side they will. The cinemas which open will have to pay a special tax, and the cinemas which do not open will not pay the tax at all. Is that a fair system of levy? Is it a system of taxation which anyone can defend? Public houses are open on Sunday. Some people do not like the idea. Why not make a fellow who uses the public house on Sunday pay an extra tax? If you have a levy, it should be on the principle that, whether you use a commodity on Sunday or not, it should be applied all round the map, and not laid down as a special principle confined to a particular industry. I represent a constituency where the people have very little opportunity for leisure. I do not want to talk continuously of my constituency, but I have been sent here to represent that constituency, and I would point out that the people who go to the cinema on Sunday evening do so religiously. It is a religion with them. They go every Sunday for an hour or so, and they enjoy the pictures. The pictures are as good as those which my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham saw in France. We have not the same cosmopolitan fancy,

Division No. 261.]
AYES.
[6.27 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bennett, Capt, Sir Ernest Nathaniel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bernays, Robert


Atholl, Duchess of
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Attlee, Clement Richard
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Blaker, Sir Reginald

and we do not always go to see gaudy pictures.

Earl WINTERTON: It is so rarely that we are both on the same side, that I hope the hon. Member will not attack me. I am in full agreement, I can assure him, with everything he has said.

Mr. JONES: I apologise to the Noble Lord if I have in any way misrepresented him, because he referred to the people whom I represent as not being up to the standard of those he represents. He said that the common democracy of this country did not quite understand the higher cultural things like grand opera; they do not understand the higher things and the great achievements which he and his class appreciate.

Earl WINTERTON: I applied it to every class in this country. I did not suggest for a moment that the wage earners are less artistic than a particular class; I meant the people of the whole country.

Mr. JONES: I understood the Noble Lord to say that the urbanised democracy was not up to the same standard as the rural democracy which he represents. As far as I am concerned, the urbanised democracy is up to as high a political standard as the rural democracy which he represents in Parliament. I have been among the democracy in Horsham, and the only difference in the democracy there is that they drink it out of pint pots, whereas in my constituency we have only half-pint glasses, and have to pay plenty for it too. But I am not blaming the Noble Lord for that. The democracy of Canning Town and Silvertown is at least up to the level of the Noble Lord's constituents. However, we are both on the same ground on this occasion, and therefore it is not worth while arguing with the Noble Lord. The Clause should be kept out of the Bill. We have no right to put it in, as it opens up an issue which cannot be fought out on this Bill without causing general opposition.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 168.

Blindell, James
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nunn, William


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hepworth, Joseph
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.


Buchan, John
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Captain Osbert


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Horobin, Ian M.
Pearson, William G.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howard, Tom Forrest
Percy, Lord Eustace


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pybus, Percy John


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Janner, Barnett
Ramsden, E.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Chotzner, Alfred James
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Christie, James Archibald
John, William
Robinson, John Roland


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Boss Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Colville, John
Kimball, Lawrence
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Craven-Ellis, William
Law, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leckle, J. A.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J, W.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lewis, Oswald
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Curry, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stanley, Hon. O. P. G. (Westmorland)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stones, James


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Strauss, Edward A.


Dickie, John P.
Lunn, William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edge, Sir William
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Major Alan
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Magnay, Thomas
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Gledhill, Gilbert
Margosson, Capt. Henry David R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Glossop, C. W. H.
Martin, Thomas B.
Weymouth, Viscount


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
White, Henry Graham


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W).
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Withers, Sir John James


Guy, I. C. Morrison
Milner, Major James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hales, Harold K.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'oaks)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Morgan, Robert H.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, William Shepherd
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Harris, Sir Percy
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sir Gervais Rentoul and Mr. Law.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Drewe, Cedric


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Carver, Major William H.
Duckworth, George A. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Edwards, Charles


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clarry, Reginald George
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fade, Sir Bertram G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cook, Thomas A.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Batey, Joseph
Cooke, Douglas
Fox, Sir Gifford


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cooper, A. Duff
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cowan, D. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Bracken, Brendan
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Daggar, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Denville, Alfred
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Donner, P. W,
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Campbell, Rear-Admi. G. (Burnley)
Doran, Edward
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)




Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Salman, Major Isidore


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maxton, James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Groves, Thomas E.
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Scone, Lord


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Selley, Harry R.


Hartington, Marquess of
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hartland, George A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Slater, John


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)
Munro, Patrick
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Headlam, Lieut. Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hicks, Ernest George
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hirst, George Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Summersby, Charles H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormiston, Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Parkinson, John Allen
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Penny, Sir George
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Jones, Sir G.W.H.(Stoke New'oton)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ker, J. Campbell
Price, Gabriel
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Knox, Sir Alfred
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lees-Jones, John
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Levy, Thomas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Logan, David Gilbert
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Remer, John R.
Wise, Alfred R.


McEntee, Valentine L.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Womersley, Walter Jamas


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ross, Ronald D.



Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rothschild, James A. de
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Mr. Michael Beaumont and Mr. Buchanan.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to cinematograph entertainments.)

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that such conditions shall require the person to whom the licence is granted to satisfy the authority that the pictures to be exhibited are suitable for exhibition on Sundays; and.
In Committee I moved a new Clause to the same effect, but on somewhat different lines. It was in this form:
The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee of persons, who shall have no interest in or connection with the production of or exhibition of cinematograph films who shall be charged with the duty of inspecting all films before they are shown on any Sunday in any area, and shall issue a certificate in respect of such films as they approve, and the licensing authority shall only allow such films to be exhibited as have been certificated by the committee."— (OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 21st June; col. 189.]
The Under-Secretary raised two principal objections to the form of the Clause. He said:
I do not believe in the setting up of any new bodies or the giving of any new powers. … I attach great importance to allowing the licensing authorities their own discretion in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 21st June; cols. 185-6.]
I have, therefore, moved the Amendment in another form which is not open to either of those objections. I do not propose to set up any new authority, and I do not propose to take away any power from the authority of the local licensing authority, whether a county council, an urban district council, a rural district council, or a bench of magistrates, but considering the immense advantage that is being given to the cinematograph industry, we should demand that those to whom this valuable licence for the Sunday exhibition of films is granted, should satisfy the licensing authority that gives them that advantage that the films they are going to show snail be decent and clean. There is nothing in connection with the Bill that attracts more universal interest and attention, not only on the part of those who are strongly opposed to the Bill, as I am, but on the part of many who may be generally supporting the idea of Sunday cinema entertainments, than the feeling that the films to be shown on Sunday must be decent and clean. It is the duty of the House to settle the question of the character of the films to be shown on Sunday.
There is an enormous annual outgo of money from this country to the United States of America, estimated by the
film industry at £12,000,000. I have had estimates higher than that. I have had a statement from a gentleman who was chairman and founder of one of the largest cinematograph companies in this country, Provincial Cinematograph Theatres, that the extension of the privilege of showing films on Sundays, if it becomes general in this country, will wield at least between £2,500,000 and £4,000,000 additional tribute to the United States of America. In a proposal of that magnitude we should at least be able to throw the onus on the person to whom the licence is granted, that he should satisfy the authority as to the character of the films that he is going to show. It is constantly-said that what is good enough for weekdays is good enough for Sundays. It is said, why should we ask for a better character of film on the Sunday? The answer is, that we do not want entirely to secularise the Sunday or to say that we are not entitled to demand of the entertainments that we are going to legalise that they shall be something of a little better character than those that may be tolerated on the weekday. For these reasons, and considering that we have spent many hours on the Bill, I shall not detain the House further.

Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
It has been a matter of surprise to me that the Home Office did not in some way safeguard the public in connection with the character of the films that are to be exhibited on Sundays. It is a very simple matter to do it on the lines of the Amendment, and I should have thought that it would not have presented any real difficulty. It would be a very wholesome and genuine check on the character of the films exhibited. It is true to say that the authorities who grant the licences have the power to interdict certain classes of films. That was the main point of the argument of the Under-Secretary in declining to accept the previous Amendment, but I do not think that it is good enough to say that they have the power; it is essential that they should use the power. They should take some responsibility for the class of entertainment offered to the public on Sundays.
I am not one of those who decry cinemas in general. Certainly, 75 per cent.
of the films we see would be perfectly suitable for exhibition on Sundays, but there is a pernicious 25 per cent. that should not be produced on Sundays. It would be a very simple thing under our procedure to see to it that those objectionable films are not shown on Sundays. After all, Sunday is a better day than the weekday, and people ought not to have things that are not of the best thrust upon their attention on Sundays. People will go to the cinema on Sunday without knowing the class of production that they will see. They may not have any choice, because perhaps there may be only one cinema in their district. They ought to be able to see something which will enable them to take away thoughts that are elevating and not have to see the sensuous, sensual film or the gangster, blackguard film. This sort of thing does not fit in with our idea of Sunday, and if we allow it to happen—it could easily be prevented—we shall be doing something to debase Sunday and not to make a wholesome Sunday.

Mr. STANLEY: In asking the House to reject the Amendment, I do not want to follow the hon. Baronet who moved it into a long discussion on the general question of the opening of cinemas on Sunday, the amount of money that will go to the industry, or the question whether we need, in principle, a different censorship for Sunday from that we need on other days. The Amendment, and the machinery which the hon. Baronet is asking the House to adopt, are really quite ineffective and meaningless. It is true, as the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said, that the local licensing authorities have the power already, and can require that certain films shall not be shown either on Sunday or on any other day. That may be right or wrong, but the Amendment, in point of fact, does not make them use the power. It would be perfectly competent for a licensing authority to satisfy the terms of this Amendment by issuing a statement to cinema proprietors that, as long as they exhibited only those films which have been passed by the Film Board of Censors, they would satisfy the authority that the films were suitable for exhibition on Sundays. That leaves the position exactly as it is to-day. Hon. Members may have something more in their minds
and may want to put upon the local authority the duty of inspecting pictures to be shown on Sundays. That course has recently been adopted by one small licensing authority with two cinemas only in its area. In the course of a few weeks they found the job of viewing the films for exhibition too much for them. If the hon. Member for Barnstaple wants to put on the London County Council the job of reviewing every film shown in London on Sundays he will find—

Sir B. PETO: That is not my Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY: I am obliged. I was trying to put into the Amendment some practical effect, and I thought that was the only practical effect which the hon. Member wanted. Now that I realise that he does not want local authorities to take any personal responsibility for seeing the films, there is really nothing left in the Amendment.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I desire to support the Amendment, even after hearing the remarks of the Under-Secretary which seem to me wholly unconvincing. The Amendment does not destroy the greater part of the objections to this Bill, but it does something to ameliorate them. It gives us a chance of making a new category of films. At present there are only two divisions; one, those films which are labelled as suitable for adults, and those which are labelled as suitable for children. If the Amendment is carried we shall have a most valuable third division; films licensed for Sundays. For that reason I support the Amendment even to the extent of making it incumbent on a local authority to go a little more into the matter of the censorship of films. There is no reason why we should trust the existing Board of Censors. It was only the other day that their identity was discovered, and then it was obvious to everybody who saw the names that they carried no weight. That being so, we have only to investigate the sort of things which they have been passing. There is no doubt that the Board of Film Censors have passed a very great number of trivial and vulgar films, and deleterious films as well; and I think that because a film has been passed by them for exhibition to adults or children it should not free a local authority from the moral responsibility of keeping, out of their town and front the children very objectionable stuff.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division (Sir J. Reynolds) said that 25 per cent. of the films exhibited were objectionable. In the report of the Birmingham committee, formed by Sir Charles Grant Robertson, it was found that the proportion is much greater. Of 289 films in Birmingham which they investigated they found that 19 of those passed for general use and 68 of those passed for exhibition to adults only were highly objectionable. That is more like 60 per cent. than 25 per cent. At the present moment a local authority is not inclined to take much trouble in regard to a film which has been passed by the censors. They may say that, having passed the censors, it must be all right. Very often it is not. Those who have gone into this subject find that films of the most deleterious kind are being passed day by day. Let me give two examples of the sort of thing I mean; the information in both these cases was given to me by people who feel strongly on the subject. There is the case of the horror and terror film. About 1,500 school children were taken to see the ordinary films exhibited in their town, which happened to be largely of the crank—I mean the crook —type, and 379 of them complained that they had suffered from sleeplessness, terrors and unpleasant reminiscences. It cannot be right that children should suffer needless terrors from having seen horrible murders such as we now see habitually in the American wild west film, or in the elaborate crook film, such as we see produced in London.
The second class of film is the suggestive sexual film, and my informants tell me that it is a horrible thing for ladies who take young growing girls to the cinema to see films in which the whole art of seduction is being practised by the adventuress on her victims. I desire to see a distinct liability put upon local authorities everywhere to review films. I know the kind of objection that will be made. It will be said that it is tedious and difficult to manage, but licensing authorities have assumed this responsibility and they should face it. The second objection is that very cheap old argument that you cannot make men good by Act of Parliament. That is about the most contemptible argument I know. Taken to its extreme limits, if there is to be no censorship, no common decency, it means that we should take the
police out of St. James' Park and the notices about litter off Westminster Bridge. You cannot trust a certain type of man without some form of law and censorship, and if that is true of the streets and of literature, it is still more true of the films, which are now one of the greatest educational influences in England. I support the Amendment with the greatest pleasure as throwing on local authorities the moral responsibility, which I hope they will face, of seeing that nothing but clean films are exhibited to children, impressionable children, who form the greater part of the audiences of cinemas.

Mr. GROVES: Not on Sundays.

Sir C. OMAN: I know nothing about London on Sundays. I am never in London on Sundays, but I certainly know what happens on weekdays. Does

Division No. 262.]
AYES.
[6.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hope, Sydney (Chatter, Stalybridge)
Pearson, William G.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Atholl, Duchess of
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Law, Sir Alfred
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Christie, James Archibald
Leckie, J. A.
Rothschild, James A. de


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lewis, Oswald
Salt, Edward W.


Cook, Thomas A.
Liddall, Walter S.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cowan, D. M.
Lunn, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Curry, A. C.
McKeag, William
Somerville, Anneslay A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Major Alan
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Magnay, Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gaibraith, James Francis Wallace
Maitland, Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Walls, Sydney Richard


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Milner, Major James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moreing, Adrian C.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, William Shepherd



Hartland, George A.
Nail, Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sir Basil Peto and Sir James Reynolds.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bossom, A. C.
Chotzner, Alfred James


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Boulton, W. W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bracken, Brendan
Colfox, Major William Philip


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Colman, N. C. D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colville, John


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cooke, Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooper, A. Duff


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Craven-Ellis, William


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cambpell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Carver, Major William H.
Crossley, A. C.


Bernays, Robert
Castlereagh, Viscount
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Daggar, George


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Davison, Sir William Henry

the hon. Member suggest that no children are taken to see films?

Mr. GROVES: This Amendment refers only to Sundays, and, therefore, if you pass it you will not preclude the exhibition of unclean films on six days of the week.

Sir C. OMAN: I do not see the point of the observation. If these things are bad in the week, then a fortiori they are worse on Sundays. There is still a difference between Sundays and other days of the week: to some of us. I entirely approve of the Amendment, and I hope the House will support it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 248.

Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Denville, Alfred
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rea, Walter Russell


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
John, William
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Dickie, John P.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Renter, John R.


Donner, P. W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Doran, Edward
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kimball, Lawrence
Runge, Norah Cecil


Duggan, Hubert John
Kirkwood, David
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Eden, Robert Anthony
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Salmon, Major Isidore


Edge, Sir William
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edwards, Charles
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Levy, Thomas
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Elmley, Viscount
Llewellin, Major John J.
Scone, Lord


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Selley, Harry R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Slater, John


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Martin, Thomas B.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K, (Croydon, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Maxton, James
Stones, James


Glossop, C. W. H.
May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strauss, Edward A.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Summersby, Charles H.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mitcheson, G. G.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Morgan, Robert H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Groves, Thomas E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hales, Harold K.
North, Captain Edward T.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Harbord, Arthur
Ormiston, Thomas
Weymouth, Viscount


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
White, Henry Graham


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hepworth, Joseph
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hicks, Ernest George
Peat, Charles U.
Winter ton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hirst, George Henry
Penny, Sir George
Wise, Alfred R.


Hornby, Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace
Withers. Sir John James


Horobin, Ian M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Howard, Tom Forrest
Petherick, M.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Price, Gabriel



Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsden, E.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Womersley.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after the word "employed," to insert the words "by any employer."
This Amendment is intelligible only if read in conjunction with the next Amendment and the next but one, and it does, in fact, deal with the same point as that raised by the intervening Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). The Bill provides that it is to be one of the conditions for licensing for Sunday open-
ing that conditions shall be laid down securing that an employé has not worked on the six preceding days, but subject to the limitation that he has not so worked in connection with similar entertainments or exhibitions. In Committee the hon. Baronet moved an Amendment, which he is proposing to move on Report, to omit those words. In the course of the discussion on that Amendment two things became perfectly plain, that it was the desire of the Committee—and the Home Secretary gave an undertaking that, as
far as possible, effect should be given to that desire—that the seven-day week in connection with the cinema entertainment should, as far as possible be avoided and, on the other hand, it was plain that the Bill as drafted left too many dangerous loopholes. For example, as was pointed out, in places of entertainment like the tower at Blackpool, where there are various entertainments going on under one roof, it would be possible to ignore the Clause as it stood, because people employed at another part of the building could be taken on in the cinema on the seventh day. On the other hand it is essential, if we are imposing a penalty upon an employer, that he should be safeguarded from unavoidable and unintentionable breaches of the law. Take the case of a man who happens to be employed as a programme seller on Sunday, but who has had casual employment on all the other days of the week, as a newspaper vendor or a caddie or whatever it may be. The employer has no possibility of checking his statements if the man chooses to tell him an untruth. He should not be made responsible for a penalty against which he has no possibility of guarding.
The Government have attempted to meet those positions, because it is felt that the necessary qualification in favour of the employer might altogether whittle away the prohibition, and it seems to be very much better to have some definite obligation put upon the employer, which will be absolute and unescapable so far as he is concerned within those limitations. Therefore, what we are proposing —and I hope the House will accept it-is that the employer shall not be able to employ a man who either in his own employment, in any occupation of any sort, has been employed on the preceding six days, or has been employed on the preceding six days in connection with similar entertainments. You will thus get rid of the possibility of an employer mobilising his own employés and shifting them from some other occupation with which he is connected into his cinema on Sunday and, on the other hand, prevent the industry as a whole moving employés about from one house of entertainment to another. If that does not absolutely accord with the letter of what was discussed in Committee, I submit to the House that it completely carries out the substance, and
I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I must thank the hon, and learned Gentleman for the explanation he has given, and I must pay my tribute to the Home Office and to the hon. and learned Gentleman for putting down on this Clause the Amendment which we were promised in Committee. I am not quite clear about the Amendment, and I will put to him the case I quoted, in order that he may tell me if it is covered. An employé in a cinema, who is employed for six days in the week, from Monday to Saturday, can obviously not be employed on the Sunday. Even if the employé is engaged in connection with another entertainment industry he will also be debarred from working on a Sunday. The case I put was as follows: The law will prevent an employé:in a cinema or an entertainment industry from working on the seventh day, but a person employed in another occupation, as a bricklayer, painter or plumber, for instance, may have been employed the whole of the week, working regularly, and yet be able to work on Sundays in the cinema. Will this Amendment make the law such that the cinema employé will not be able to turn round and say, "The law prevents me from working on Sundays, but it does not prevent a man coming from another industry and blacklegging me on the day the law prevents me from working"? Does the Amendment cover that case?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Theoretically it will be possible for some employé, not connected with the cinema at all or with that particular employer in any other capacity, to come in on the seventh day, although he is working elsewhere on the other six days. But the practical answer is that there is so much demand for this Sunday employment within the industry that it will not be possible for the cinema employer to escape rationing Sunday employment among his own employés.

Earl WINTERTON: I would like to correct what might have been a wrong impression caused by the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. E. Davies). Not merely the opponents but the supporters of the Bill suggested that words of this kind should be inserted. I rise for the purpose of thanking the
Government for having acceded to what was almost the unanimous request of the Standing Committee. We have been criticised in some quarters on the subject, but all that we sought to establish was the principle that no person should be allowed to work on Sunday if he had worked for six days a week in other occupations. As far as that idea can be carried out it is being carried out by these words. I realise that there are certain difficulties, but so far as possible they have been overcome.

Sir B. PETO: I was the Mover of the Amendment in Committee when this undertaking was given by the Government. I fully realised at the time that it was very difficult for the Under-Secretary to do more than he did, and that was to say that he would take the matter back, consider it and as far as possible meet the general view of the Committee. In my view the Government have gone as far as possible in finding practical words which can be carried into effect, and I thank the Government for having met me in that respect. Of course while this Amendment deals with the question of the continuous seven days work in a week it does not deal with the analogous question, quite as important, of occasional rest on the Sunday. On that subject I have an Amendment to move later.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 21, after the word "employed," insert the words:
on each of the six previous days either by that employer in any occupation or by any other employer.

In line 23, leave out the words "on each of the six previous days."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hicks.

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. There are three or four Amendments on the Paper dealing with the same point. Could you call an Amendment standing in my name, designed to deal with the very question that we have settled in the last Amendment so far as the 7-day week is concerned? We could then clear that part of the Clause before we deal with a totally different matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure to which Amendment the hon. Baronet refers.

Sir B. PETO: The fourth Amendment, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) that no person employed in any place licensed to be opened and used for public entertainment or amusement on Sundays shall be employed by any employer for more than twenty-six Sundays in any year or for more than two Sundays in succession.
That seems to be the best Amendment to move, because paragraph (a) has already been made very complicated by the words that we have inserted.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have not reached the hon. Baronet's Amendment yet. We shall come to it in due course.

Sir B. PETO: I do not want to question your decision in any way, but my Amendment deals with the very subject that we have just dealt with, and I thought perhaps it would be more convenient to deal with one subject at a time.

Mr. SPEAKER: We shall deal with it when we come to it. We had better go on.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) that the conditions of employment of any person employed in public entertainments on Sunday shall be such as are fixed by trade union agreement, but where no trade union agreement subsists then such as may be fixed by conciliation boards consisting of an equal number of representatives of associations of employers and of bona fide trade unions of employés engaged in public entertainment, together with an independent chairman; and.
I am very grateful to the Solicitor-General for the observations that he made on the Amendment to which he spoke, in trying to provide some guarantee that persons employed in Sunday entertainments should not be employed on the preceding six days. I suggest to the Government that it would be better if they could accept such an Amendment as I have now proposed, in order to call in those who have the experience and the organisation and are willing to place such organisation at the disposal of those concerned. Very little control is provided for in the Amendments which we have just carried, and unless some further Amendment of the kind I have moved is adopted there will be many irregularities arising and the Government will find that the intention of the Clause is to a very large extent evaded.
My desire is that just as railwayman and omnibus drivers and conductors are protected generally by trade union agreements, so in the Sunday entertainments industry workers should have the benefit of a similar kind of provision. My Amendment offers the best possibility of guaranteeing that there shall be some general control over the matter. To those who are concerned about Sunday welfare I submit that my Amendment makes provision not only for material but even for spiritual welfare. We desire definitely to provide, that there shall be some sort of organisation in this matter. Without organisation I am sure that the persons employed in Sunday entertainments, if left entirely to the whims of employers, will find the same irregularities arising as occur in the case of chauffeurs who have to drive people to church on Sunday, milkmen who have to deliver milk, bakers who have to bake bread and printers who have to set up type.
I do not oppose Sunday work when it makes for happiness and pleasure. I do not believe that we should be happy only when we are making other people miserable. There is too big a tendency to crush out some of the fun and laughter of life, by certain coteries of individuals. However well-intentioned they may be, perhaps for some physical or other reason they are not able to join in fun and laughter, and with great earnestness they try to throttle the fun and laughter of other people. We want adequate arrangements to be made so that the working week is observed. I am not opposed to Sunday labour provided that adequate recreational facilities are provided for those who are compelled to work on Sunday. If a man has a 5½ days week he has opportunities for general recreation and rest. It is a deplorable feature of the present-day life that so many should say that our education is not equal to discrimination between cultural and entertainment value. I have been to the pictures many times, and I would go oftener if there were not so many calls on our time in this House. I might go to-night if we get through this Debate early enough. In this machine age workpeople have had the joy of work taken away from them to a very large extent. They do not, to the same extent as formerly, use the tools of craftsmanship, and the change has made a definite impression on the life and character of
our people. There is therefore all the more need to cultivate happiness, fun and laughter. I hope that no person who is unable to respond to that provision will be encouraged with malice aforethought to try to deprive other people of pleasure.
The trade union has provided a shield for omnibusmen, tramwaymen, printers, railwaymen and a multitude of others. We have thrown away the idea that on Sundays we must go only to museums and places of that sort. I remember that when bicycles were introduced, people wanted to make women sit sideways, because it was thought to be improper for them to wear rational dress and ride the other way. I have seen the very beautiful figures of men and women on the films. I wish that workpeople and others had such beautiful limbs instead of limbs that are warped and twisted and bent as the result of misery and privation. The Amendment provides a practical opportunity for a trade union organisation, if it exists, to see that the hours of labour are generally observed. If some such organisation is not given control what steps do the Government propose to take to see that the six days week is carried out? Under the Shops Act the local authorities have to appoint inspectors. If the proposal of the Amendment is not carried out, in what way is it proposed to supervise these entertainments and see that the law is not violated? The Amendment provides the best supervision that we can suggest.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
7.30 p.m.
A great deal has been said in these discussions about the position in London but we must remember that this Bill will be applicable to other districts where licences have been issued in the past and where there has been little control over the hours or conditions of those employed on Sundays. In the West Riding of Yorkshire licences have been issued in the past on the understanding that no profits were taken by the cinema proprietors and no wages paid. It was a voluntary opening and all the takings went to the hospitals. This Bill will alter the position and will call upon the people engaged in the industry to work on Sundays wherever these licences are granted. The Mover of the Amendment is right in pointing out that in all industries in
which there is work on Sundays, special arrangements were made, through trade unions and employers' organisations, in regard to Sunday employment. Certain guarantees are given and observed by both sides that only certain hours shall be worked and that people shall not work more than a certain number of days in a week. We want the same kind of guarantee for those who will be employed on Sundays in the cinemas.
A number of us who are supporting the Bill do so because we are anxious to maintain the status quo  in this matter throughout the length and breadth of the country. We believe that a lot of good has been done by these hospital contributions. In the West Riding for instance, as I have pointed out, the hospitals took the total. At the same time we feel that effect should be given to the desire expressed by many speakers during the Committee stage that there should be a definite guarantee to the people who will be called upon to do Sunday work, that they shall not be compelled to work more than six days in the week and that their conditions in other respects shall be reasonably safeguarded. This is a fair Amendment. Its acceptance would give satisfaction to the people who are going to be employed on Sundays and I do not think that the employers would take any exception to an arrangement of this kind. I think indeed they would welcome it and in nearly all districts where there is Sunday opening there are organisations which would readily give their services to make such an arrangement satisfactory to all concerned. I hope that the Minister will give serious attention to an Amendment which seeks to achieve an object favoured by many of the speakers both in the Committee and in the House.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): I do not think that anybody in this House will quarrel with the general principle underlying this Amendment. An Amendment precisely similar was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. E. J. Davies) in one of the best and shortest speeches which we had during those proceedings upstairs. I am, certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise on reflection that the Government, however sympathetic with the general principle, cannot be expected to accept the
Amendment in this form. The Amendment really assumes a position in which trade union agreement is not possible because, if agreement can be obtained and if the organisations on both sides are willing to co-operate, there is not the least necessity to put in any statutory obligation to do so. The real point of the Amendment is that in a case where the trade union and the employers' organisation are unable to come to an amicable agreement, it proposes a form of compulsory conciliation. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who is experienced in these matters, will I think agree that the moment conciliation becomes compulsory it ceases to be conciliatory. Moreover, this proposal seta up conciliation boards but does not say how the members are to be selected or how they are to operate.
There is one point on which I am certain I can satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is in regard to the steps which would be taken by the licensing authorities to ensure the carrying out of the provisions in regard to a six-day week. Clause 1 (2) of the Bill provides:
For the purposes of Section four of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, any conditions subjcet to which a place is allowed under this Section to be opened and used on Sundays shall be deemed to be conditions of the licence granted under that Act in respect of the place.
The Section 4 referred to is the Section which gives a constable or any officer appointed for the purpose power to go in and inspect at any time to see that these regulations are being carried out.
The practical effect of the Amendment, and what has finally decided the Government against accepting it, is this. It would place another statutory obligation in the Bill as a condition precedent to the opening of any cinema on Sundays. I gather from the refreshing speech made by the Mover that he, like myself, is not at all anxious to put any further obstacle in the way of the Sunday opening of cinemas where people wish them to be open. But, if these words go into the Bill, and if this conciliation machinery cannot be set up by October—and it probably could not be because it is extremely complicated—then one of the conditions in the Statute would not be fulfilled and it would be impossible for any cinemas to open. I think every-
body wants the conditions of employment, not only on Sunday but on every day of the week, to be regulated by amicable agreements between employers and workmen and not forced upon the workers by the pressure of economic necessity, but however true that may be this is not the place—in a single Clause of a Bill dealing with Sundays only—to try to set up the principle of compulsory conciliation.

Mr. HICKS: My experience in trade union negotiations is that conciliation boards are not always final in their decisions. Many conciliation boards adjudicate on conditions without necessarily giving final decisions and my proposition is not for compulsory conciliation, but for having a conciliation board in the event of any difficulty arising.

Captain WALLACE: I think if the hon. Member reads the Amendment he will see that it is implicit in the wording that, not only should the conciliation board be compulsory, but that the decision should be compulsory.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that in this Amendment we were asking for special privileges. But this is a special Bill. It is something altogether new to the House of Commons and the country and that is why it has caused so much controversy. As it is a special Bill, we are anxious to see special protection given to those who will be called upon under it to work on Sundays. On these benches there are differences of opinion as to the Bill, but on this point we are agreed. If special conditions are created and people are called upon to work on Sunday they should have special protection, and we

Division No. 263.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Clarke, Frank
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Haslam, sir John (Bolton)
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, George Henry
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Holdsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Domore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Law, Sir Alfred



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

are afraid that it is just possible that these Sunday workers may not get that protection to which they are entitled. Now is the time to try to get them that protection. After the Bill has passed through the House it will be too late. I hope that the Government will reconsider the position and will recognise the reason for this Amendment. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) claimed that there ought to be special provisions in regard to the films to be shown on Sunday. He argued that they ought to be different from the films shown on any other day. On that principle I think the hon. Baronet should support us in this Amendment. It will be interesting to see how many hon. Members opposite we can get to vote with us on this issue of special protection for these Sunday workers.

Sir B. PETO: I am quite convinced that employment in the cinema industry requires very special attention. Only to-day I have heard from the Ministry of Labour that an inquiry was started under the Labour Government into this matter. It had to be suspended owing to the pressure of other work but it is proposed to resume the inquiry when circumstances permit. The information which reaches me is to the effect that those employed in the cinema industry—an enormous number of people—are very little organised and undoubtedly need some special protection and, as the hon. Member has appealed to me, may I say that I shall certainly support him in this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided Ayes, 52; Noes, 248.

NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glossop, C. W. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ormiston, Thomas


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goff, Sir Park
Palmer, Francis Noel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pearson, William G.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peat, Charles U.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Graves, Marjorie
Penny, Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Grentell, E. C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hales, Harold K.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ramsden, E.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Hanbury, Cecil
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ray, Sir William


Bernays, Robert
Harbord, Arthur
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Harris, Sir Percy
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, John R.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hartland, George A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Blindell, James
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys. Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Boulton, W. W.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Robinson, John Roland


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bracken, Brendan
Hepworth, Joseph
Rothschild, James A. de


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horobin, Ian M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Salt, Edward W.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Scone, Lord


Carver, Major William H.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Selley, Harry R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W)
Kimball, Lawrence
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Slater, John


Christie, James Archibald
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, Oswald
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Colville, John
Liddall, Walter S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cook, Thomas A.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cooke, Douglas
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Copeland, Ida
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mabane, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, Edward A.


Crossley, A. C.
McKeag, William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McKie, John Hamilton
Summersby, Charles H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Alan
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davison, Sir William Henry
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dickie, John P.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Donner, P. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Doran, Edward
Martin, Thomas B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Drewe, Cedric
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, Hubert John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Eden, Robert Anthony
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Elmley, Viscount
Morgan, Robert H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, William Shephard
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Munro, Patrick
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild



Fox, Sir Gifford
North, Captain Edward T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nunn, William
Commander Southby and Mr. Womersley.


Gledhill, Gilbert
O' Donovan, Dr. William James

Sir B, PETO: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) that no place shall be licensed to be opened and used for cinematograph entertainments on any Sunday for more than five hours; and.
I feel that I ought to apologise for moving this Amendment. The apology is not for myself, but for the Government's attitude in this matter. In Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment to limit the hours of Sunday opening to the hours of six to eleven, and the Home Secretary pointed out that it might produce certain difficulties if it were fixed that a cinema entertainment could not commence before the hour of six. He said:
I gather that there is great interest in the Committee in this matter and that there is a feeling among a large number of Members that something should be done to meet the purpose that the hon. Baronet has in view. As we have spent a very long time on this Amendment, I would make a suggestion which, I hope, will be generally acceptable. To fix the hours as six to eleven in the Statute still seems to me to be open to objection, for the reasons that I have given, but there is not the same objection to fixing the limit of hours which was suggested by the hon. Baronet as a possible alternative. If we were to insert words on Report that the opening should be for not more than five hours on Sunday, which is the rule now in London, and which is the purpose the hon. Baronet and others have in view, that would not be open to the objection that I raised with regard to the future as to charitable and religious organisations, and, at the same time, it would serve fully the purpose which we have in view in regard to employment of labour and any other interference with the character of Sundays.
He followed with these words, which I ask the House particularly to note:
If the hon. Baronet would accept that suggestion as meeting substantially the object that he has in view, I would give an undertaking on behalf of the Government to move such an Amendment on the Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 9th June, 1932; col. 57.]
That was on the second day. On the first day, I moved an Amendment on the question of seven days' continuous work in any week. On that, the Home Secretary was nothing like so definite, and I was in some doubt as to the question of withdrawing my Amendment, but I had an appeal from the Under-Secretary of State—I might almost say a lecture on behaviour—and it was in these terms:
May I make a final appeal to the hon. Member? It is quite unprecedented when the Government have made a very fair offer that they should be pressed in a manner
which can only indicate distrust of their sincerity. There can be no object in carrying the Amendment unless it be that the Government cannot be trusted to carry out their words."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 7th June, 1932; col. 31.]
That was the lecture that I was given on the Tuesday, and what I have just previously read to the House was the undertaking given by the Home Secretary on the Thursday. I heard from the Undersecretary of State on Friday last, with amazement, that the Government did not propose to carry out this undertaking, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he has any objection to my reading a portion of his letter, which very fairly stated the reasons of the Government. I will not read it if it was meant to be a private communication.

Mr. STANLEY: There is no point in reading a private letter written to the hon. Baronet. The reasons which I gave in that letter will be stated by me in the course of the Debate.

Sir B. PETO: I quite accept that, and I said that if the Under-Secretary of State had any feeling about it at all, I should not wish to read the letter. I will merely say, without quoting in any way, that he felt that, in view of the information which had reached them subsequently, if they put on the Government Whips in support of an Amendment in opposition to which the hon. Gentleman would have to make a speech, it might produce a situation which would bring ridicule upon Parliament. I think there is something worse than bringing ridicule upon Parliament, but I hope to be able to show that it would have done nothing of the kind. If we are not to accept definite undertakings made in Committee, I do not see how we can carry on Parliamentary business.
In the course of our Parliamentary procedure from time to time there have been slight differences of opinion between the Government and hon. Members as to the exact purport of some undertaking, and in every case where there has been any doubt about it the Government have always said, "If that is what the hon. Members understood, of course we shall stand by our undertaking and carry it out." I cannot find a precedent of any sort for this new procedure, and I cannot help feeling that it will be pointed to again and again, not when the Government are supported by a colossal
majority as at present, but perhaps when Parliamentary parties are more evenly divided and undertakings of this kind have been given, and the question will be asked, "Can we trust this undertaking or not, in view of what happened on the Sunday Entertainments Bill?" That is a vastly more important question than whether cinemas should be opened for only five hours or for a longer period.
8.0 p.m.
There are two courses which the Government might have pursued. The Under-Secretary of State will probably deal with the question of what the position would be if they put on the Whips against what they believed to be necessary and in favour of the undertaking which they gave. If they did not propose to do that, they might under these circumstances have left this to a free vote of the House, but to put on the Government Whips in order to defeat the definite undertaking given by the Home Secretary seems to me to be something of a rather stronger order; and that, I understand, is the course which they intend to pursue. What are these fatal obstacles for carrying out this honourable undertaking? I have been given the agenda of the London County Council for its meeting on the 21st June in the County Hall, in which they recapitulate the whole history of this Sunday opening question, and at the end they come to this conclusion, every word of which is pertinent to this Amendment:
The council's general practice for many years in this respect was to raise no objection to the opening of cinemas between the hours of 6 and 11 p.m., and when formulating the conditions under the Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1931, the council on 8th December, 1931, decided to attach a condition as follows:
'That no cinematograph performance shall begin before 6 p.m. or finish later than 11 p.m. except that music, other than vocal, may be given during the period of assembly from not earlier than 5.40 p.m. (5.30 p.m. on wet days) provided such music is not advertised and does not form part of the programme.'
The council also from time to time raised no objection to the opening at other hours on particular occasions.
The council on 10th February, 1931, decided to urge the Government to introduce legislation 'to legalise the practice followed by the council for many years with regard to Sunday entertainment.' The Amendment to be moved by the Home Secretary at the Report stage would accord with the council's general practice as indi-
cated above, but would, if agreed to, remove the possibility, which is provided both by the present Bill and by the Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Act, of the council's altering its conditions in the future and adapting them to the needs of the public. The Entertainments (Licensing) Committee are of opinion that, as regards London, there is no reason why, at any rate during the winter months, cinematograph halls should not be opened for not exceeding six hours, if licensees so desire and if the council sees fit to grant such a concession. We recommend:
'That, in relation to the Sunday Entertainments Bill, the council is of opinion that no alteration should be made in the Bill which would have the effect of limiting the discretion at present vested in local authorities covered by the Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1931, in regard to the hours of opening of premises for cinematograph entertainments on Sundays.
Hon. Members will see from that that the county council ask for three things. They say that they want to carry on their existing practice of granting licences to open on particular occasions earlier than their usual hours; they desire to permit opening for six hours in winter; and, generally, they desire a free hand. As I understand, there are three film societies which are in the habit of exhibiting special films on Sunday afternoon. The reason they give them, then, is that they cannot get a cinematograph theatre on any other day, because the theatres are wanted for the commercial purposes for which they were erected in the afternoons and evenings of the other six days of the week. That applies to London only, and it would have been perfectly possible to put in a proviso to the Amendment, if the Government had moved it, to provide for London only and giving the county council certain special powers authorising a film society or similar organisation on occasions to exhibit a special film outside the normal hours during which cinemas are open.
We have to recollect that the whole of these objections to the Government carrying out their undertaking are purely London matters. I understand that there are no film societies in the 98 other districts and areas where Sunday performances of films have been allowed. Will the House remember that we are not dealing here with a Bill to regularise the opening of cinemas on Sunday in London. I should have liked that, and I tried to limit this Bill upstairs to that, but that is not the Bill now. It is a Bill to
legalise the opening of cinemas throughout the country, and it leaves the matter to the licensing authorities. The licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, is primarily the county council, but under Section 5 the county council can delegate its power to urban or rural district councils or to benches of magistrates sitting in quarter sessions. These powers have been so delegated and are so used in other parts of the country. Therefore, we have not to consider what will be reasonable powers to give with regard to the opening of cinemas on Sunday to a body like the London County Council, but the powers to be given to every little urban and rural district council and every bench of magistrates in the country. It is incumbent on us not to leave the Bill as it is prescribing no hours of opening at all.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent cinemas opening for 12 hours on Sunday if a small local authority so chooses. It is not impossible that hours far beyond what are now contemplated may be allowed here or there, or even generally, in the near future. I am told that the practice has been in the county of Durham and in one or two instances in Yorkshire where there is the opening of cinemas upon Sunday to limit the hours more strictly than I propose by my Amendment. They are usually limited to three, and cinemas are never allowed to be open until after church on Sunday. That is well and good. I am told that if the Amendment is carried, it might possibly give a lead to these authorities —with whom, I need not say, I am in complete accord if Sunday opening is allowed—to extend the hours. How do I know, and how does any hon. Member know, what the future may have in store I Have we a right to go, as we are going in the Bill as drafted, far beyond the London County Council's practice of the last 20 years, and far beyond the general practice on the Continent of Europe with regard to Sunday entertainments generally?
Parliament is now giving authority for Sunday opening. That is the main fact of this Bill. Parliament retains the right to approve draft Orders that are made, and it therefore assumes responsibility. Our responsibility demands that we should place some limit to the hours on which cinematograph entertainments
should be given on Sunday. We have been told in the Second Beading Debates on the various Bills that have come before the House on this matter that it is a question of a contest between the public-house and the cinema. Public-houses generally do not open before 6 p.m. on Sunday, and therefore, if we allow, as the Bill allows, cinemas to be open at 2, 3 or 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, where does the contest between the cinema and the public-house come in? The contest will be between the cinema and the Sunday school, between the cinema and the children's Sunday afternoon service. There is also the question of the hours of work for the people who are employed in the cinemas. Are we to justify for a moment the employment of people on Sunday practically all round the clock if some local authorities so decree it? I move the Amendment for these reasons, and I ask for it not only or mainly, for the reasons I have given, on its merits, but because of the fact that for the first time an undertaking, given in the most definite and positive words that any Minister could use, has been disregarded and is now ignored by the Government, and I am left to move an Amendment which, in honour bound, the Home Secretary or his deputy should have moved.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not going to enter into the rights or wrongs of the five hours at this juncture; that matter was fought out in Committee; but I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has stated, a definite pledge was given in Committee that the Government would do something about this matter. I believe that an Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary appeared at one time on the Amendment Paper. In any case, if one turns to the Official Report of the second day's proceedings of Standing Committee B on Thursday, 9th June, 1932, one reads on the cover:
On Clause 1, the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to move an Amendment on Report that no place shall be opened for cinematograph entertainments on a Sunday for more than five hours.
I want to know if the Home Secretary is a responsible Member of the Government. Is he entitled to make a pledge on behalf of the Government? He is
not here now for he is on the Continent carrying out work in another direction, but I am sorry that he is not here be that we could have his opinion on the deletion of this sacred pledge. We have a perfect right to ask whether a pledge is a pledge, or whether it is simply given in Committee to certain people who have every hope of carrying an Amendment, which is then withdrawn when it reaches the Floor of the House. The Undersecretary and the Solicitor-General were present when that pledge was given, and I hope that we shall hear from them why it should be broken so openly on the Floor of the House. It is not the first time that the Home Secretary has given a pledge on behalf of the Government and then somebody somewhere has caused it to be broken. During the General Election the Home Secretary said—and it is printed on record—that he had had the opportunity of consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the effect of the means test, and he definitely said that only the interest and not the capital of applicants should be taken into consideration. I do not want to enlarge on that, but I am entitled to say that a different interpretation is being given to it at the present time.
What have we to think of Cabinet responsibility in the future? Have we to ask next time the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General comes to Lancashire, what their credentials are and whether they have the authority of the Government? If I make a speech in Lancashire, I speak on my own responsibility, but when a Minister of the Crown comes the newspapers and every member of the public naturally believe that what he says is the opinion of the Government. There is also on record a case in which another Home Secretary gave a pledge on behalf of the Government which altered the whole electoral law. I think I am not saying anything which is contrary to history. It may be news to some people, but I believe it is an absolute fact, at any rate I have had it on reliable authority, that the late Lord Brentford unexpectedly, without consulting his colleagues, pledged the then Conservative Government to give votes for women.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER(Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member is now bringing in somewhat extraneous matter.

Sir J. HASLAM: I am only giving an illustration of a case in which a Home Secretary had given a pledge, and the Government, a Conservative Government, honoured that pledge; but it looks as though the National Government need not honour a pledge, although it is given by the Home Secretary. I hope the Home Secretary's followers on the Liberal benches will have something to say about this pledge, given by their recognised leader, who is now on the Continent of Europe carrying out a national work, and the failure of the National Government to carry out his pledge. A pledge ought to be sacred; it is to some of us, and it ought to be to responsible Ministers of the Crown. When the discussion was proceeding in Committee upstairs we had every reason to expect, from the atmosphere pervading the Committee, that the hon. Baronet's Amendment would be carried.

Earl WINTERTON: No.

Sir J. HASLAM: We had every reason to expect so. At any rate the representative of the Home Office stepped in and asked the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: It is not fair for my hon. Friend to say that there was any indication that the Committee as a whole were in favour of the Amendment. One of the supporters of the Bill, an hon. Member for Bristol, expressly protested against the action of the Government.

Sir J. HASLAM: One Member protested—I do not know whether that has had any effect on the Government—but only one Member protested; and I believe I am right in saying that every other Member who spoke was strongly in favour of the hon. Baronet's Amendment. I have as much right to interpret the atmosphere in the Committee as the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and in my opinion, and I give it only as my opinion, we should have carried that Amendment upstairs. How different it is down here. Upstairs every Member of the Committee hears the discussion before he gives his vote. We all know what happens in this House-though I am not complaining, and am thankful that there are so many hon. Members here prepared to listen to the Debate. It shows the feeling in the House and in the country generally when
so many hon. Members are prepared to listen. Generally speaking, we get huge influxes of Members who have not heard the discussion to record their votes when the Government Whips are put on. Without entering into the merits of the question of the five hours I want to protest against the Government giving a solemn pledge, through one of the highest Ministers, and then coming down to the House and saying they will not carry it out, simply because an outside body, however important they may be, the London County Council or anyone else, finds it inconvenient to carry it out. This House ought to be responsible to itself, and I hope hon. Members will realise that a pledge is a pledge, and will be prepared to go into the Lobby against the Government on this particular question, quite apart from the merits of the five hours' proposal—to vote on the question of whether the Government ought to carry out its pledge.

Mr. STANLEY: I shall not refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam), who seconded this Amendment. He has not dealt with the merits of the Amendment, but confined himself to rather loose imputations of a lack of personal honour. I am ready at any moment to meet him in Lancashire, where we are both known, if he chooses to impugn my personal honour. The hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment spoke, as he has done throughout these Debates, with great courtesy. It is always a great regret on my part that one who is so invariably courteous should also be so invariably wrong. I quite realise that the circumstances under which he moved the Amendment would, had he chosen to take advantage of them, have given him an opportunity for making a speech of quite a different kind. Before I deal with the substance of this Amendment I should like to make one explanation. When the hon. Baronet moved his Amendment in Committee it fell to me to be the first spokesman from the Government Bench to reply, and to ask the Committee to reject it. During the course of further debate my right hon. Friend got up and gave the pledge to which the hon. Baronet has referred. I have heard it said in various quarters that what happened was that I resisted the Amendment, and that afterwards the Home Secretary threw me over. There is no more agreeable role than that of
injured innocence suffering its darts in silent loyalty. It is a role I should like to assume if I could in honesty do so, but I cannot. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman's pledge was given at my suggestion, and certainly with my approval, and although the responsibility may be technically his, as he is the head of the Department, in reality it is mine, because I have been more closely connected with this Bill.
The course which this matter has taken is as follows: The hon. Baronet moved in Committee an Amendment to limit the hours of opening on Sunday to the hours from 6 to 11, and he told us that he had chosen those particular hours because he understood they were the hours during which cinemas were allowed to open in London. The whole Debate proceeded on the idea that that was what had been done in London in the past, and that if it was all right for London surely it would be all right for any other area in which cinemas would open. I quite agree that I ought to have been better informed as to the London practice, but I can at any rate plead this in my defence, that we had on the Committee during that Debate the chairman of the Licensing Committee of the London County Council, and one could assume, with some justice, I think, that if he did not challenge the statement that that was the practice in London, that it was in fact the practice. It was because of that, because it seemed to me that if the practice worked in London it could be worked elsewhere, that I joined with the Home Secretary in making this suggestion and giving this pledge. I do not wish to minimise it in any way; the pledge is as definite as it could be.
Subsequently to that Debate I was asked to receive a deputation from the London County Council, and then, for the first time, they put before us certain facts which I think certainly should have been made available to us before. We found then, for the first time, that although it is perfectly true that the ordinary hours for the commercial opening of cinemas on Sunday evening are from 6 to 11, there are two other cases in which afternoon opening is quite commonly allowed— for film societies' exhibitions and charitable performances for specific objects. It is obvious why the afternoon is selected for that. It is because in the afternoon the cinema is lent free of
charge, and of course it could not be lent free of charge at night when it had to be used for the ordinary commercial performance.
Let me deal, first of all, with the film societies. There are at the present moment in London three film societies which are being allowed to open in the afternoon. There is what is known as The Film Society, which is a large society with a subscription rate of three guineas and which gives special performances on Sunday.

Sir ALFRED LAW: Only three places allowed?

Mr. STANLEY: I said three guineas, I do not know whether that was the "three" to which the hon. Member was referring. The Film Society gives something like 18 performances a year. There are two other film societies, both of a working-class character with annual subscriptions of 10s. a year, and showing the same type of performance. I feel that the importance of film societies, not only to-day but in the future, is very great. They do very good work indeed in showing and popularising the better type of film for which it is difficult to find a place in the ordinary commercial market, and I believe that they will spread. I hope to see the three film societies which are now in London develop, in the course of time, into a large number of similar film societies all over the country. To strike a blow at them is one of the worst things that you could do for the development of the film in this country. It is clear that the passage of the Amendment which the hon. Baronet is now proposing would cut them out. The owner of the cinema would only be able to get from the London County Council a licence for five hours during the day, and he would have to choose whether he was going to get his licence for five hours in the evening when he opened for his own profit, or for five hours in the afternoon when he lent his theatre to somebody else to have their own show. In spite of all the unselfishness of the cinematograph owners, I cannot help feeling that there would not be very much doubt as to where the choice would go. The choice would be the five hours when he could show films to the public, and not when he simply lent his theatre to somebody else.
8.30 p.m.
The other class of case was the case where the cinema was lent in the afternoon for a charitable performance for some specific object or for a special institution, such as the St. Dominic's Priory Poor Children's Fund at the Hampstead Picture Playhouse, the Middlesex Hospital at the Rialto Theatre, Coventry Street, the British Empire Film Institute at the Alhambra Palace, Leicester Square, the College of Nursing at the Plaza Theatre, Regent Street, and a number of others of that kind. There again, the cinema is lent in the afternoon, whereas in the evening it is used by the proprietors for the commercial performance. They would once more have to make the choice between which of the periods of five hours they would accept a licence, and, again, I have no doubt whatever, that the choice would fall upon the evening. Had those facts been known when the case was discussed in the Committee, we should never have given the pledge that we gave, and had those facts been known to the Committee which was arguing the whole time as to the practice in London, the Committee would never have asked for such a pledge to be given. That is the position which I found, and upon which I had to decide upon a course of action. That is the decision which has given rise to the charge of breach of faith and general ministerial dishonesty. I do not wish to excuse myself for the mistake that was made. If there is any blame for not having known these facts, if hon. Members say: "You should have known. You should have been in a position to tell us, and the position would never have arisen had you taken proper care to ascertain the facts," I have no reply to it. I can only say that we thought that we knew what the practice was. We undoubtedly acted under an error. Ministers had no right to act under error. What were the three alternatives? I could have kept the pledge whatever happened. I could have come down to this House and moved the Amendment which the hon. Baronet is now moving, and I could have told the House what the Amendment was going to do and the harm that I thought it was going to cause, and, at the end, I could have put the Government Whips on to pass the
Amendment through the House. Is that the course which the hon. Baronet says I should have taken?

Sir B. PETO: I suggested in my speech that it does not seem impossible, and I still feel that very strongly, after hearing the Under-Secretary. This is entirely a question for London and is a question of exception. It is a question of dealing with film societies and not with commercial exhibitions.

Mr. STANLEY: I gave way to the hon. Member, but I did not want him to make another speech.

Sir B. PETO: No, I am not making another speech. It would have been perfectly possible to put a proviso into my Amendment to cover the case of London alone.

Mr. STANLEY: What am I to understand? That I can break a pledge so long as I break it for London? That the charge that I did not carry out the Home Secretary's pledge given in Committee disappears if I carry it out everywhere but in London? If that is the basis upon which attacks are made upon my personal honour, further discussion is unnecessary. Let us get away from high politics and attacks on Ministerial honour. It is true that for the moment film societies operate only in London. I do not want to say that London must be the home of film societies because nowhere else will there be an Amendment moved—

Mr. KNIGHT: Is the hon. Gentleman certain about there being film societies only in London? [Interruption.] Why do you make the statement?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity afterwards of making his own speech.

Mr. KNIGHT: I asked you a courteous question.

Mr. STANLEY: I refuse to give way.

Mr. KNIGHT: Then do not talk about discourtesy!

Mr. STANLEY: The House will see that the course of coming down to move this Amendment in order to carry out the pledge, and to explain that it was a bad Amendment and put the Whips on to pass it, was really impossible. It is treating the House of Commons as a sort of
university debating society and not as a legislative assembly. We cannot think that this House has to pass legislation which may injuriously affect people for years, simply in order to carry out a pledge that a Minister gave in mistake. I personally would rather rest under an imputation of having broken a pledge than that the whole basis of Parliamentary government should be brought into such ridicule.
The second alternative was that of having to devise some specific Amendment to deal with this kind of case, of which I have told the House to-night, yet which would prevent the opening of ordinary commercial cinemas for more than five hours. That would not, of course, have been strictly carrying out the pledge which the Home Secretary gave, but it would have been making the best possible effort. I can assure the House that we did make every effort to find an Amendment of that kind. Not only did I myself try, after communicating with my hon. Friends and telling them what we were going to do, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, after his return from Geneva, although he was only 24 hours in the office, insisted upon another effort being made to find an Amendment such as we could put before the House. There again it would have been perfectly easy for us to put some form of words on the Paper and trust to the lack of vigilance of Members of Parliament to let them get through; but there were no words that we could find which would have made provision for the kind of cases that I have detailed to the House, and which would not have left a hoophole for every local authority who wished their commercial cinemas to open in the afternoon. Therefore, an Amendment of that kind would have been merely derisory, and would have been treating the House with contempt.
The third alternative is one of which I warned the hon. Baronet as early as I could, in order that he himself might put the Amendment down, and that the matter might not go undiscussed because he was expecting us to put it down and therefore missed his own opportunity. This evening the House is asked to decide on that Amendment. The hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech, referred, not only to the pledge which my right hon. Friend gave on this particular
point, but to a speech which I had made at an earlier sitting of the Committee, when I asked him to accept the Government's assurance on another point, and he used that as an argument to show how impossible it would be, if this pledge were not carried out, to go on with the ordinary routine of Committee work. The hon. Baronet quoted some words from my speech in which I said that it would be impossible to go on if he adopted a course which could only show distrust of our sincerity. I would like to ask him, does he distrust our sincerity now?

Sir B. PETO: I really answered that question in my speech. I said that, if specific pledges given in Committee were not to be carried out, such an appeal as the Under-Secretary made to me would be impossible in the future.

Mr. STANLEY: I asked the hon. Baronet a question which he has not answered, and which I will now ask the House. I ask the House whether, in view of the facts as I have now detailed them, they distrust the sincerity of the Government? Do they believe that we acted in bad faith? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do they think that we deliberately used some means of going back on a pledge which we were sorry we had given? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If they do not believe that, why is there all this talk about Parliamentary Government becoming impossible in future? If they merely believe that we were foolish, that we made a mistake, and that, rather than perpetuate a mistake in an Act of Parliament, we are coming to the House now and asking the House to release us, surely it is not going to be said that that will shake to the roots Parliamentary government in this country.
I would say this to the hon. Member who seemed to think that there would have been some great value if this Amendment had not been withdrawn—if it had been taken to a vote, and if on that vote it had been passed—that, even if it had been passed, there would have been nothing sacrosanct about it. The House is not deprived, on the Report stage, of the power to review an Amendment which has been passed in Committee. If our pledge had not been accepted, if the Amendment had not been withdrawn, and if it had been carried, it would only have meant that
now I should be moving to delete these words, instead of the hon. Baronet moving to insert them. The Government Whips would have been on, and those who are affected by the fact of the Government Whips being on would still be voting with us. Although I do not excuse the breach of a pledge, the fact remains that the cause which those to whom the pledge was made have at heart is not in any way suffering.
With regard to the free vote, to which the hon. Baronet referred, it seems to me that that makes no difference at all. Our pledge was to introduce this Amendment and to carry it, and the hon. Baronet naturally expected, not only that we would move it, but that we would support it and put the Whips on in its favour. It does not seem to me that, if we are thinking merely in terms of carrying out the pledge, we should be in any way carrying it out if we moved the Amendment but spoke against it and left it to a free vote, and, therefore, I do not think that from that point of view the position would have been made any better. The other point of view is this: The Government definitely feel that this Amendment would do harm. Quite apart from accusations that may be made against us, the supporters of the Government in the House of Commons are at least entitled to know what the views of the Government on this particular question are, and that could only be shown by putting on the Whips. The hon. Baronet will not, I am sure, particularly in these circumstances, attach too much importance to the fact that the Government Whips are on. They have been on for the last two or three Amendments, but I do not think that that fact prevented anyone from going into the Lobby against them. No doubt it has often happened that, when anyone has felt strongly and conscientiously upon a point, he has gone into the Lobby against the Government, and I do not believe that he has suffered any great penalty on that account. Hon. Members, whether there be a free vote or no, will vote on this matter as their conscience dictates, but the Government have a right to indicate clearly to their supporters that they think it would be a bad thing if this Amendment were carried. Do not let hon. Members think that if this Amendment be defeated the hours of opening will be completely
unregulated. Every local authority has the power to impose what conditions it likes as to the hours during which cinemas may open, and this is only an added power of imposing particular conditions.
I hope I have said enough to convince the House that we were faced in this case with a very difficult decision. No one regrets more than I do having to stand at this Box and justify the breaking of a pledge which was given in quite definite form; but, as I said before, I should have regretted it even more if I had had to stand at this Box and pursue a course of action which, however gratifying it might have been to my own sense of honour, and however it might have enabled me to say to hon. Members, "I always carry out my word," would have imposed limitations upon a great number of people for many years just for the sake of satisfying my own sense of honour and enabling me to escape blame, but at the same time would be turning Parliamentary government into ridicule. This is a business Assembly; it is not a university debating society; and I hope that hon. Members, with all the facts before them, will not only absolve my right hon. Friend and myself from any of that distrust of sincerity which the hon. Baronet so fears, but will also see that, in the circumstances, we are following the only course which it is right to pursue.

Mr. HICKS: We thank the hon. Baronet for bringing this matter forward and giving the House an opportunity to understand the promises that were given upstairs, and the present position, and we are particularly grateful to the Undersecretary for the very excellent explanation that he has given for not carrying out the promise that was made upstairs. It appears that promises that are made upstairs are not always carried out. I am sure the House would feel that, if, in the light of fresh information, we go legislating blindly when facts and conditions that are reported to us which should suggest an amendment of our ways, we are not acting in a business way but in a contrary way altogether. I was going to support the Amendment in the early stages because it had a five-hour day. I thought that was a very excellent proposition to introduce into the cinema industry, and I hoped it would be carried out in many other industries so as to assist some of our unemployed. We feel
that we should like this commercial side of the cinema, if it is at all possible, limited roughly to those hours. In view of the explanations that have been given, we have no alternative but to give the Government our support.

Mr. CURRY: I feel very sorry that the discussion of the Amendment has been diverted by the incidents which have occupied most of our discussion tonight. I think the Under-Secretary should be assured, as I am certain is the case, that no one who served upon the Committee, or indeed no one who is a Member of the House, would entertain any thought that he would ever be guilty of a breach of faith. There are no two Members in the Government or in the House who have a personal sense of honour higher than the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. I feel that the discussion has been diverted from its real course. In the Committee I laid particular emphasis upon the difference between the conditions in the provinces and in London. I emphasised what I believed to be a fact, that the whole spirit behind this Bill is a spirit of compromise and that those Members who supported the Bill in its first form were seeking to find a compromise between the great tradition of the English Sabbath and the existing practice in London and elsewhere, and by refusing an Amendment of this sort the Government are, in my view, in order to ease the situation in one way, worsening it in 94 out of the 95 areas concerned.
The practice which it is the purpose of the Bill to legalise is the habit of offering an alternative form of entertainment and amusement to a vast number of the population after the hours set apart for divine worship, and I think we are going wrong in exposing those hours to the trespass of these alternative amusements and entertainments, and that is why I hoped that the Government could see their way to accept some such Amendment as was moved upstairs. The facts that the Under-Secretary has pointed out relate almost entirely to conditions in London and even now, if he could accept some such Amendment applying to the provinces, saying that the cinemas should not open before certain hours in the day, or limiting the hours, but certainly leaving the great portion of the English Sunday free from this encroachment, that
would in my view be more fitting to the purpose of the Bill and more acceptable to public opinion. We are conscious of the strong emotion under which the hon. Gentleman was labouring and I should like to assure him, as one who has not always agreed with him in the progress of this Bill, that it was an emotion which was experienced under a misapprehension. No one would dream of making any accusation against his personal honour. I trust that his peace of mind will be put at rest on that score.

Earl WINTERTON: It is all very well for the hon. Member to make the speech which the has just made, but the charge made by my hon. Friend has not yet been withdrawn, and I rise with as much indignation as the Under-Secretary to support him against the charges which my hon. Friend across the Gangway and the hon. Member opposite have made against the Government and against him. The speech we have just heard betrayed a curious suspicion of local authorities, coming from the quarter from which it came. I understand that the hon. Member is a Member of the Liberal party, which has always advocated local option. [Interruption.] I do not know that that makes it any better. It shows that he has not much faith even in his colleagues. His whole argument was directed to show that local authorities could not be entrusted with the simple task of laying down the hours at which cinemas should be open. It is ridiculous to say that local authorities cannot be entrusted to lay down regulations under which cinemas should be opened on Sundays. They have always hitherto carried out that duty, in those cases where they exercise what they believe to be their rights, perfectly satisfactorily and I see no reason why they should not do so in future. With regard to what the hon. Member opposite said about his desire to see the fullest opportunity given during the hours that cinemas are opened for the production of films of the kind in which he is interested, that again is a matter, although it does not directly arise under the Amendment, for the local authorities.
I come to the charge that my hon. Friend has made. I do not wish to exacerbate the feeling that has arisen, but, as a senior Member of the House, I think it is right that I should say a
word about the matter. The charge that my hon. Friend made, briefly, is this. He said that after the action of the Government it will be impossible in future to accept any undertaking given in Committee. That is a very serious charge to bring. I cannot imagine a more serious charge against the honour of the Government. Such a charge should only be brought by an opponent of a Government if he is very sure of his facts.

Sir B. PETO: It was not a charge against this Government. I meant that in future in the conduct of business, whatever Government was in power, there could not be the same reliance on these undertakings as there has been in the past.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend is the last person with whom I wish to have a personal contest, but I hope he will not think it discourteous if I say he is rather splitting hairs. He says that, because of something that this Government has done, he will never trust any Government in future. If that is not an injurious charge to make against the Government, I do not know what is. If the offence of the Government is so bad that in future no Government may be trusted, surely it is the most serious charge it is possible to bring against the Government, and that is the charge which my hon. Friend has brought. Let us consider what happened in the Committee. The Home Secretary, when he first came to deal with the Amendment—and I ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker to be a little generous in the interpretation of the Rule about quoting—said:
In these circumstances, I deprecate the Amendment."—[Official Report (Standing Committee B), 9th June, 1932; col. 54.]
and later on—and these are the relevant words—he said:
If we were to insert words on Report that the opening should be for not more than five hours on Sunday, which is the rule now in London."—[Official Report, (Standing Committee B), 9th June, 1932; col. 57.]
It is clear that the pledge was given in the honest belief held by the Government that a certain rule was in force. The Government then discovered that the rule was not in force, and that there were exceptions to it. The Government faced the situation which my hon. Friend has so well put. My hon. Friend asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barn-
staple (Sir B. Peto) in effect, If faced with that situation, what would you do? The hon. Baronet said that this only applied to London. What is the basis of this most serious charge brought against my hon. Friend? Is the basis of it that the Government could perfectly well have fulfilled the pledge by carrying out only part of it? Is that what he means? Is it his interpretation that because this rule which the Home Office thought applied to London does not apply to London but to the country, therefore the Government should bring in an Amendment to deal with the country only? I ask my hon. Friend this specific question: Would that, in his opinion, be carrying out the pledge or not?

Sir B. PETO: I think it would have been far better to have done as much as the Government thought they could do, as they did in the earlier Amendment we have passed, rather than have done nothing at all; but they have done their utmost to defeat the undertaking which they gave.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that that is an answer to the question, which was, whether or not it would be a breach of faith to carry out part of it?

Sir B. PETO: Half a pledge is better than no pledge.

Earl WINTERTON: That is a peculiar argument. If I had given an undertaking I should try to carry it out, and if I could not do so I should give a reason why I did not think that I could carry it out. I do not think that I should carry out part of it. Faced with the really relative situation as to what they should do, are the Government, having discovered that they have made a mistake, to say, "We are pledged for all time notwithstanding the fact that we have discovered a mistake?" Are they to be pledged to put into an Act of Parliament something which would be unfair and unwise, and hamper the beneficial movement already going on? Is that what my hon. Friend wishes the Government to do? If that is his idea of Ministerial responsibility, the sooner such Ministerial responsibility is done away with the better. The whole argument used by masses of people outside this House was why, when the Government found that they had made a mistake, they should not admit their
mistake? I have always thought that the arguments made against a Government was that they would never admit making a mistake. The Government have admitted making a mistake now, and they have taken a very wise course in refusing to put down an Amendment, and in opposing the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is not sufficient that a serious charge of this kind should be made from the back benches and be allowed to go unanswered except by the Government. I agree with every word of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I hope that those who have made a charge against the Government, and, inferentially, against honoured members of the Government, will withdraw it before the Division is taken.

9.0 p.m.

Sir C. OMAN: I heard the very moving speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. It is a case of Quis'excuse s'accuse. He does not deny that he has accused himself of the very grave conduct on the part of a Minister of the Crown of having given a pledge without knowledge of the circumstances of the business for which he was giving the pledge. He pledges himself to an Amendment or a line of conduct which happens not to be suitable to the actual facts which were before him at the time. I have always supposed that Ministers in charge of a Bill were always more or less in possession of the facts upon which the Bill was founded, but on this occasion the Minister was not. All we can say is that there the situation lies. But the Ministry are under a false impression. They gave a pledge under the impression of the matter being in one condition, when, as a matter of fact, it was not in that condition. Ministers ought to be aware of the main facts of the Bill of which they are in charge.

Captain GUNSTON: While I am in favour of the principle of the Amendment, if I had spoken before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I should have taken the opportunity of saying that we all know him too well to believe that he could act in any other way than in the best of faith. He has acted very honourably in telling the House that a mistake has been made. If more Ministers would admit mistakes at the beginning, there would be less serious consequences in the future. Although I have always been opposed to the original Bill, I have
accepted the present Bill with some difficulty. I hoped that the Government would be able to accept the Amendment, but I appreciate the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary. If you are to have cinemas on Sunday, it is probably better to encourage the societies to which he referred.
I see that point, but I am not sure whether he appreciates that if the Amendment is not passed he will not obtain his object. If the cinemas can remain open for all hours to show ordinary commercial films they are not likely to lend their theatres to those societies. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not too late really to find a way out. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman with all his talents, and with the talents of his superior officer, cannot find a solution. Perhaps he will assure the House,, without making any pledges, that he will again look into the matter so that it may be put right in order to meet the general desire of the House and not inflict hardship, and that the matter may be put right in another place. Will he look at the suggested Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), which says:
that no place shall be licensed to be opened and used for cinematograph entertainments on any Sunday for more than five hours.
Would it be possible, after the words "five hours," to put in the words:
except where the place of entertainment is being used by a society approved by the Home Secretary for specific charitable purposes.
I ask my hon. Friend to look into the matter to see whether some solution cannot be found. I would ask my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) when he accuses my hon. Friend of wasting time and asks what effect it will have on Lausanne, what they think at Lausanne when they see the hours which have been wasted in this House by the bringing in of the Bill. I would ask my hon. Friend if he would try to meet those of us who want to support the Government and who have strong feelings, by some such Amendment as I have suggested, which might be moved in another place.

Mr. LECKIE: I am sorry that so much heat has been introduced into the Debate, much of which was unnecessary. No one
wants to suggest that the Under-Secretary or the Home Secretary have done anything to deserve censure. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has so handsomely taken the blame upon himself, seeing that the Home Secretary is not here. I was rather disturbed this afternoon by hearing certain words that reflected upon the Home Secretary. The arguments of the Under-Secretary have not convinced me. He has pointed out that the impression of the Home Secretary and himself was that five hours was the rule in London. Is it not a fact that five hours is the rule in London? As the Under-Secretary has said, there are one or two exceptions, one or two film societies which meet on Sunday afternoon, and therefore it cannot be said that there is only five hours opening in London, but those are merely exceptions to the rule. We are being asked to legislate for those two or three societies in London, in which the provinces have not the slightest interest and about which they know nothing. It is absurd that the Amendment should not be accepted simply because of these two or three societies, which may be doing good work or bad work.
There are ways of getting over the position of these special film exhibitions, just as there are ways of dealing with the theatrical performances on Sunday. I understand that there are theatrical societies which have performances on Sundays, and that that takes place regularly in London. If these two or three film societies are doing such a good work, there must be some way of dealing with them, but we ought not to legislate specially for them in the way suggested.
I trust that even yet the appeal to the Under-Secretary will bear fruit. I feel very strongly that there ought to be some limit to the hours on which cinemas can open on Sundays. Five hours is an ample period. Not only ought there to be some limit of the hours but the cinemas ought not to be opened before a certain hour in the evening. It would be fatal to our Sunday school work if cinemas were allowed to open on Sunday afternoons. The House must be very careful not to do anything which would allow that to be done. I am not convinced by the Under-Secretary's arguments against taking off the Government Whips. This afternoon the Government Whips were taken off on the first Amendment, and we are now dealing with almost a parallel case. It
would be perfectly legitimate and honourable for the Government to take off the Whips and to allow the whole House to settle this question on its merits, just as we settled the first Amendment on its merits.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: I appeal to the Under-Secretary not to be sidetracked by all this talk about London. There has been too much talk about London and not a word about the provinces. I understood that the principle of the Bill was to restore the status quo. There are certain places, on the South Coast particularly, whose business depends on wet afternoons on Sundays, and they are watching this Bill and not opposing it in any way because it was understood in the first place that the status quo was to be restored. Surely, the local licensing authorities are the best people to judge what the local people want. That has been done in the past, and I hope that that position will not be lost sight of in the midst of all the talk about what happens in London.

Colonel GOODMAN: I can assure the Under-Secretary of my belief in his sincerity and my perfect understanding of how the mistake occurred, but I want to make it very plain that my sympathy is and has always been with this Amendment, and I regret very much that the Under-Secretary had not the opportunity of moving it. He has told the Souse that the reason he could not move it was because of the change in circumstances, that there are some film societies which use cinema houses and palaces on Sunday afternoons, and that on other occasions they 'are used for specific charitable purposes. As far as I can understand, there are very few film societies and there are not many afternoons used in many cinemas for specific charitable purposes. There are, possibly, 400 or 500 cinemas scattered over London, and I cannot imagine that those cinemas will not try to take advantage, if we do not carry the Amendment, by opening for as many hours as they possibly can. Only a few of the cinemas are used by the film societies 'and for the specific charitable objects, but the vast majority would be opened all day long.

Mr. STANLEY: The London County Council, whether we pass this Amendment or not, will have complete power to restrict the hours, as they do at the present time.

Colonel GOODMAN: I accept what the Under-Secretary has said, but I would point out that the London County Council is not the only authority which will be concerned. We have already introduced, in Clause 1 (1 (a) (b)), limitations on local authorities. Too much interest has been taken in the film societies and too little interest in the millions of people who really believe in the old-fashioned Sabbath. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curiy) said, this Bill was accepted by many hon. Members as a compromise,, but instead of it being a compromise we are going to aggravate the feelings of those people who object to the Bill altogether. I voted for the Bill on both occasions because I have personal knowledge of the conditions under which people live in the East End of London. I have been in houses in London where seven or eight people have been sitting in one room, with a baby, the washing hanging about and the smell of cooking all day long. I have referred before to the dreadful intimacy of a Sunday night in the East End of London, and for that reason I have supported the opening of Sunday cinemas, but if I had thought that if this Bill meant the opening of cinemas all day on Sunday I am doubtful whether I could have given it my support.
We must be more tolerant. We ought to consider the feelings of those people who wish to retain a proper Sunday. The cinemas ought not to open for more than five hours; it is quite enough. That would give the people who want to see the cinema show, their chance, and it would give the people who do not want to go to the cinema, their chance. I believe that there is still a way out; that we can still say that cinemas shall not open for more than five hours on Sundays, except for specified charitable purposes and for the use of certain societies.

Mr. STANLEY indicated dissent.

Colonel GOODMAN: The Undersecretary shakes his head; I am sorry. I should have preferred the Amendment limiting the opening to the hours from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. so that those who want to go to the cinema on Sunday night may do so and those who retain a love for the real old English Sabbath may still enjoy it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Division No. 264.]
AYES.
[9.16 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Peat, Charles U.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bernays, Robert
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Jenkins, Sir William
Robinson, John Roland


Briant, Frank
John, William
Salt, Edward W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Kirkwood, David
Scone, Lord


Cook, Thomas A.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cowan, D. M.
Leckie, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Liddall, Walter S.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Curry, A. C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Stones, James


Drewe, Cedric
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edwards, Charles
McKeag, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maitland, Adam
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Ganzoni, Sir John
Milner, Major James
Wells, Sydney Richard


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, William Shephard
Williams, Or. John H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Muirhead, Major A. J.



Grundy, Thomas W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-




Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Magnay.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Denville, Alfred
Hepworth, Joseph


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dickie, John P.
Hicks, Ernest George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Donner, P. W.
Hornby, Frank


Attlee, Clement Richard
Doran, Edward
Howard, Tom Forrest


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Elmley, Viscount
Janner, Barnett


Bossom, A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Boulton, W. W.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Ker, J. Campbell


Broadbent, Colonel John
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kimball, Lawrence


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Knight, Holford


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gledhill, Gilbert
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Goff, Sir Park
Leigh, Sir John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Carver, Major William H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Levy, Thomas


Cassels, James Dale
Greene, William P. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Greenwood,- Rt. Hon. Arthur
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Clarry, Reginald George
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Grimton, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Groves, Thomas E.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Conant, R. J. E.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cooke, Douglas
Hales, Harold K.
May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cranborne, Viscount
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Craven-Ellis, William
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-


Crossley, A. C.
Hanbury, Cecil
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Daggar, George
Harbord, Arthur
Morgan, Robert H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Harris, Sir Percy
Munro, Patrick


Davison, Sir William Henry
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild

The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 193.

Nunn, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Ormiston, Thomas
Salmon, Major Isidore
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Patrick, Colin M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Petherick, M
Selley, Harry R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Blis'n)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G.H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Price, Gabriel
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Weymouth, Viscount


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
White, Henry Graham


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Ramsden, E.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ray, Sir William
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rea, Walter Russell
Sponder-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Winterton, Ht. Hon. Earl


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Womersley, Walter James


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Reynolds, Col. Sir James Phllip
Strauss, Edward A.



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


RUSEEL, ALBERT (KIRKCALDY)
Summersby, Charles H.
Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) that no person employed in any place licensed to be opened and used for public entertainment or amusement on Sundays shall be employed by any employer for more than twenty-six Sundays in any year or for more than two Sundays in succession.
An earlier Amendment moved by the Government dealt with the 7-day week and carried out as far as possible the limited undertaking given upstairs in Committee, but it left out altogether the question of employment on Sundays. Two questions arise here. One is the question of continuous employment for seven days in the week and of the worker having one holiday on some day in the week, and the other question is that the worker should have a holiday at any rate sometimes when other people are taking their holidays, namely, on Sunday, and on some Sundays in the year for the purpose for which the Sabbath was instituted. This question has both a social and a religious side. Hon. Members will notice that in my Amendment I provide that no person shall be employed, in any place licensed to be open and used for public entertainment or amusement on Sundays, by any employer for more than 26 Sundays in the year or for more than two Sundays in succession.
I have put in the words "by any employer" because those are the words used in the earlier Amendments moved on behalf of the Home Secretary, where a distinction is made as to what is possible in the way of regulating employment by a man's regular employer and what it would be fair or, on the other hand, what it would be unreasonable, to expect of an employer who engages a
man for casual employment. Therefore, in the form in which I have moved this Amendment, it contemplates that, if a person is the employer of a man, he shall see that he is not employed for more than 26 Sundays in the year, and, equally, if a man is the employer of another man and he wishes to employ (him to work on Sunday, he shall see that he does not work on more than two successive Sundays without a Sunday off. I would like in this connection to call attention to what I think was a very admirable motion 'moved in the Church Assembly and which had the support of the Attorney-General. It was in these terms:
The maintenance of Sunday as a weekly day of rest in agreement with the original divine ordainment of the Sabbath is of vital importance to the whole community as it not only provides for Christian people the most satisfactory opportunity in an age of stress for the public worship of God but also the most effective safeguard against the exploitation of the week.
9.30 p.m.
That motion is exactly relevant to the question I am raising in this Amendment. It is not only a religious question or even mainly a religious question; it is a social question also. If we legalise, as we do under this Bill, an inroad on the Sunday as we have known it hitherto, so far as the public are concerned who go to these entertainments, they are only substituting pleasure for religious occupations which used to be more generally observed both in the morning and evening, but as far as the employé is concerned it is a wholly different question. We are not substituting pleasure there but a day of work for a day of rest, and therefore I say that no day can possibly take the place of Sunday, and we must see that whatever
else we do in this Bill no one shall be asked to work or expected to work more than two Sundays out of three or for more than half the Sundays in the year. If the Solicitor-General thinks that in the wording of my Amendment I have in any way left any loophole which would make it difficult to apply or am imposing any obligation upon an employer to do something in regard to which he cannot find out anything and so on, I am willing to accept any substitution of other words which may be suggested by him, provided he will make it clear that they will do what this Amendment asks the House to do. I am convinced that we have not completed the work we are bound to set our hands to do, on this question of a new class of employment which will now very likely become general throughout the country by merely putting into the Bill, as far as we can, a provision to prevent seven days' work in the week. We are bound to complete that by putting in as strong a provision as we can against the employment of people for every Sunday in the year, and safeguarding for them the opportunity either of religious worship or of having a holiday on the same day as their fellows. It is for these reasons that I move this Amendment and ask the House to give it support. I only hope the Government will see their way to shorten our proceedings by accepting it.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment for this reason. Films get special publicity in the newspapers, and there is a special exploitation of the industry for the purpose of its advertising power. It is therefore vitally essential that the voices of those who have religious scruples, and which are mainly inaudible in the Press because of their less financial advertising value—and where scruples are sometimes pocketed on account of certain social and political ambitions—should be heard very determinedly in support of Sabbath observance. For that reason I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. First of all, there are two minor objections of draftsmanship, both of which have been indicated. In this Bill we are dealing only with cinemas, but this
Amendment is so drafted as to prevent the employment of a man for more than 26 weeks in any place which is open for public entertainment or amusement. Then there is this further difficulty, that the introduction of the words "by any employer" would have this effect, for example, that supposing a man were employed in a cinema for 25 Sundays in the year, and then went off to some other place entirely unconnected with cinematograph entertainments and was employed by an entirely different employer for two more Sundays, that employer, knowing nothing about what this man had been doing at the cinema, would be liable for some penalty for infringement of this rule. Apart however from minor objections of that sort, I ask the House to reject this Amendment on broader lines. This is an attempt to lay down much too meticulously the sort of conditions which are essentially those for a local authority to decide.
The local authority knows what the local conditions are, and it can ensure that the men are safeguarded from exploitation on Sunday, much better than the House of Commons can by laying down general words of this sort. There are many people who might well prefer to be employed on Sundays. There are, for example, cinemas in the Jewish quarters of London and elsewhere, where the employés may be of that community and would vastly prefer to have their own Sabbath to themselves and to be allowed to work on our Sabbath. If this Amendment were passed there would be no latitude left to the local authority to give effect to conditions such as those. There is even the individual case of the man the rest of whose family happens to be employed in the newspaper trade, and to whom it would be a great advantage to have free a day other than Sunday, because his family have to go to work on the Sunday. Or there might be the man who is entirely free from all ties and would prefer to have some other day of the week free. No latitude would be allowed to the local authority in these or other individual cases which hon. Members may have in mind. The Government's position is this: There is a great danger of trying to tie up local authorities with too precise restrictions on matters of detail, when we are in effect leaving to them the discretion as to how this Act shall be administered.
For that main reason I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that the House has been very disappointed with the speech of the learned Solicitor-General. He spoke of objections to draftsmanship. I have known representatives of Governments very ready to accept Amendments, provided that they agreed with the principle of those Amendments, and they have had the nice habit of putting the words correctly in another place. It is no argument to oppose this Amendment on the ground of draftsmanship. The hon. and learned Gentleman also objected because the words "any place of entertainment" are included, and he said that this principle did not belong to the Bill at all. But earlier in the evening the Government tabled a new Clause that had not the remotest connection with the Bill. That was in regard to the Film Institute. Consequently that argument falls to the ground. When It suits the purpose of the Government they always desire the local authority to have the utmost freedom. But, when we deal with the means test and transitional benefit, how much freedom is given to the local authority? Or in housing, education and public health? There they tie the authorities down to the last comma. But in this connection they want to throw on the local authority a responsibility they do not like to accept themselves.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman used the argument that some men preferred to be employed on Sundays. He represents the Rusholme Division of Manchester. He knows Rusholme, and so do I I would like to know how many men there would prefer working on Sundays to any other day. I would like to see a census taken in any working-class area in this country to find out how many men prefer working on Sundays to working on any other day. As a matter of fact, some time ago in the city of Manchester a poll was taken by a newspaper, after a long campaign, to decide whether the parks should be open for bowls and tennis on Sundays. The vote was 300,000 "against" and 30,000 "for." That is an indication of what the people's mind is in some parts of the country. Nor can the Solicitor-General get away with the Jew either. When it suits the Government's purpose they use the poor widow and the Jew and
newspaper trade as a shield. Really, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have that argument in support of his opposition to the Amendment. We are not all Jews, anyhow. If I remember rightly, the total alien population of this country, adults and children, is less than 250,000.

Mr. LEVY: On a point of Order. The members of the Jewish persuasion are not aliens in the true sense of the word, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. DAVIES: I did not mean it disrespectfully. Really the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot use that argument in favour of his contention, because if he wanted to accept the principle of the Amendment he could have in this Bill a provision that would apply to the Jewish people, just as such a provision was put in the Humane Slaughter of Animals Bill. The rights of the minority are always safeguarded in every Measure of this kind, except when the minority happens to be the Welsh people. But I will come to that later. I hope that the hon. Baronet will press his Amendment to a Division, because I am satisfied that the vast majority of the people, whether they go to church or not, want their Sunday on the seventh day of the week. I have said many times and I repeat, that you cannot get a Sunday on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. You want your "Sunday" on the same day as other people, and that is on Sunday. I trust, therefore, that for once in a while we shall defeat the Government on this Amendment.

Mr. MAGNAY: I wish to support the Amendment. I am just a bit tired of this zeal for local option in most unexpected quarters. The Solicitor-General talked about interfering with the latitude of local authorities. I want to know why we should interfere with the latitude of the working man, the cinema operator, and his natural desire to enjoy a Sunday's rest on a Sunday, the communal day of rest, when all his fellows are free from work, when his family and other families meet because it is the day of rest. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks glibly as if to interfere with the latitude of the local authorities was a cardinal sin, as if local authorities were heaven-sent bodies. Why we should interfere with the lati-
tude of the working man, who has the authority of heaven-sent laws, I cannot understand.

Sir J. HASLAM: I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment which embodies a justifiable and reasonable request. Sunday is not like other days and we are entitled to plead on behalf of the people employed in cinemas that they should be allowed to have at least half their Sundays free from work. Those who are advocating this Amendment are the true friends of the workers. They are the supporters of family life. In the population of this country there are many who never meet around the family table except on the Sabbath day and to deprive them of the opportunity of meeting on at least half the Sundays of the year, is depriving them of a very valuable part of their family life. Those of us who have had any experience at all in these matters know that one Sunday off is worth two or three other days off. If we want any test as to whether that is so or not,, we need not go further than the fact that it is an understood principle in industry in this country that a man employed on the Sabbath day should receive at least double the ordinary rates of pay. That practice has not arisen through any accident but because the working people of this country love their Sundays and their opportunities of meeting together. Therefore I claim that all lovers of the Sabbath day and all true friends of the workers should support this Amendment.
There is one other point which I need hardly emphasise. The Sabbath day is the only day which is really set apart for the development of the spiritual life of the people of this country. It may be said that religious influences ought to affect people on every day of the week but we know that in practice the Sabbath day is the day specially set apart for this purpose. I should be sorry to see this House depriving the workers of this country of opportunities to develop the

Division No. 265.]
AYES.
[9.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Fermoy, Lord


Attlee, Clement Richard
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Batey, Joseph
Curry, A. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Daggar, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Drewe, Cedric
Groves, Thomas E.


Christie, James Archibald
Edwards, Charles
Grundy, Thomas W.

spiritual side of their lives. They should have at least every other Sunday for that purpose:
Man shall not live by bread alone.

The House ought to realise that truth. To me this is the most important Amendment on the Order Paper. The cinema proprietors themselves can easily obviate the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise if this Amendment is passed. They have the possibility of closing, as I think they will, on the slackest day of the week. They have the possibility of instituting a rota of employés. Difficulties of that description can easily be got over by trained business men who are used to getting over difficulties. I think that as a result of the passing of this Measure we shall find that the slackest day of the week will be the day on which the cinemas will close. They will close on those days on which no wages are paid, on which no dole payments are made, and they will be crowded out on the Sabbath day. I want to see the men employed in the cinemas having at least 26 Sundays in the year with their families. Those of us who have discussed this matter with policemen, transport men, public utility men and others know how they demand certain Sundays off. If we were to pass a law to the effect that those men were to work on 52 Sundays of the year, while immense privileges were, at the same time, being given to their employers, there would be a reaction throughout this country which would be felt in this House. We have a right to demand from people on whom we are conferring such great favours and privileges, such monopolies if you like, as this Bill confers upon the cinema people, that the conditions indicated by the Amendment shall apply in their case. I hope that the sponsors of this Amendment will press it to a Division and I shall have pleasure in voting for it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 199.

Gunston, Captain D. W.
Logan, David Gilbert
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Lunn, William
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Hales, Harold K.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McKeag, William
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Hanbury, Cecil
McLean, Major Alan
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Magnay, Thomas
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Maitland, Adam
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hepworth, Joseph
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James
Stones, James


Hirst, George Henry
Moreing, Adrian C.
Tinker, John Joseph


Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Morrison, William Shephard
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, David
Peat, Charles U.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Liddall, Walter S.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Sir Basil Peto and Sir Wilfrid


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sugden.




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Albery, Irving James
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Martin, Thomas B.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mitcheson, G. G.


Bernays, Robert
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morgan, Robert H.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Munro, Patrick


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Glossop, C. W. H.
North, Captain Edward T.


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nunn, William


Boulton, W. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ormiston, Thomas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Palmer, Francis Noel


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Graves, Marjorie
Patrick, Colin M.


Briant, Frank
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Petherick, M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grimston, R. V.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Buchan, John
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ray, Sir William


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rend, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Harbord, Arthur
Remer, John R.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Carver, Major William H.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cassels, James Dale
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hornby, Frank
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Salt, Edward W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Selley, Harry R.


Conant. R. J. E.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey M.


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cooke, Douglas
Janner, Barnett
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Copeland, Ida
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Craven-Ellis, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crossley, A. C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kimball, Lawrence
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stanley, Hon. O. F G. (Westmorland)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leigh, Sir John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strauss, Edward A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lindsay. Noel Ker
Summersby, Charles H.


Dickie, John P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sutcliffe, Harold


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mabane, William
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Duggan, Hubert John
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)




Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
White, Henry Graham
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)



Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Watt, Captain George Steven
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersley, Walter James
and Mr. Harcourt Johnston.


Weymouth, Viscount
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word "that" to the word "from," in. line 2, and to insert instead thereof the words:
such sums as may be specified by the authority not exceeding the amount estimated by the authority as the amount of the profits which will be received.
This Amendment has to be read in connection with two other Amendments near the top of the next page, in lines 5 and 6. It is to be a condition of the granting of a licence to open on Sundays that some part of the profits are to be given to charitable objects. That is in the Bill, but this afternoon we have passed a new Clause that a percentage of that money shall be devoted to the particular purpose indicated in that Clause. As a matter of draftsmanship, in any case, it will be necessary to make some Amendments consequential upon that Clause, and it will probably be convenient if I read the Clause as it will appear when these Amendments have been made. It will then read:
(b) that such sums as may be specified by the authority not exceeding the amount estimated by the authority as the amount of the profits which will be received from cinematograph entertainments given while the place is open on Sundays and from any other entertainment or exhibition given therewith, and calculated by reference to such estimated profits or to such proportion of them as the authority think fit, will be paid as to the prescribed percentage thereof to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and as to the remainder thereof.…
10.0 p.m.
to charitable objects and so on. If the Clause had been left as it was, it would have been very difficult to arrive at what would have been the percentage of a proportion, and it is very much better to leave it to the local authority, upon making a proper estimate of the profits, to say what exact sum shall be paid over for these two purposes. As a matter of fact, in the administration of the scheme which the London County Council have been carrying out for many years, they make the estimate of the profits beforehand
and settle on the exact sum that is to be paid. There is, therefore, no difficulty in practice in working it in this way, and we suggest that it will be much more effective.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think the Solicitor-General assumes that because the House passed a new Clause earlier on, the House is, therefore, in agreement with the whole suggestion that some part of these moneys should go to charitable undertakings, and if that is so, I want to controvert it and to say that there are many people who are not at all in agreement with that point of view. There are many people who think the suggestion that it should be part of the law that a certain part of these profits should automatically go to charitable undertakings, is absolute humbug. If the assumption is to be that just because you are going to allow cinemas to be opened on Sundays, they should therefore be blackmailed into giving some portion of their profits to charitable undertakings as a sort of balm to their conscience, that though they are not quite sure it is right to go to cinemas on Sundays, yet if some proportion of the money goes to charitable objects it is all right, that seems to me a very serious matter which this House ought to spend a moment or two in considering.
This is not a point that I want to stress particularly, but I would remind the House that when the original proposal was before this House in the last Parliament the most sinister argument possible was produced by the late Home Secretary, Mr. Clynes, who actually made an appeal that the money should be kept for charities because it would help, among other things, the Jewish Aged and Needy Pensioners' Society. It may be news to new Members, but the height of cynicism was reached when it was suggested that ordinary Christian people should think it is all right to go to cinemas on Sundays and thereby benefit, of all things, a no doubt very deserving, but Jewish charity. It shows the kind of intricacies and absurdities to which one is driven in supporting a Measure
of this kind. Either it is right or wrong, morally or in any other way, that cinemas should be opened on Sundays, but the question whether it is more right because you allocate a certain proportion of the profits either to the Cinematograph Fund that we created earlier to-day or to reputable or possibly disreputable charities, seems to me to be perfectly absurd. I presume that all the good people who go to church on Sunday morning will no doubt think to themselves,
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done,
and try to get the best of both worlds by having said that in the morning and then salve their consciences by saying, "Well, at any rate the exciting film that we shall see to-night will benefit some charity." It is not consonant with the dignity of the House to pass a Measure which involves any such consideration as that. The Solicitor-General says that this is a drafting Amendment. It may be so, but he read out a long thing which was very hard to follow. Even if it be a drafting Amendment, it relates to a paragraph in the Bill of which I totally disapprove, and against which I should divide if I felt that I could make any effective opposition that way.

Sir B. PETO: I have no objection to raise to the rearrangement of the words of this paragraph which has been moved by the Solicitor-General, but I strongly urge upon the House that, when we are dealing with this paragraph as it is now connected with the new Clause which we passed earlier, and when we consider that the sum which is to be allocated to charities is to go to another purpose, it makes it still more absurd that we should not specify that any appreciable measurable sum should be devoted to charitable objects. Out of the 98 areas, including London, where cinematograph entertainments are given on Sunday, in only three is any portion at all devoted to charity. When we were in Committee the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) asked the Under-Secretary:
Under the Clause, would it be possible for cinemas to open and pay no profits to charity, or is the local authority compelled to extract some profits for charity? 
The Under-Secretary said:
As the Clause stands, a local authority must impose some condition as to the pro-
portion. The proportion can be anything that the local authority likes.
The hon. Member for West Bristol asked: "Can it be nothing?" The Undersecretary replied:
No, but it may be an eighth of 1 per cent."—[Official Report (Standing Committee B), 9th June, 1932; cols. 68–9.]
It is all very well to talk about giving this power to local authorities, but it is going rather far to say that we are to dispose of a portion of the sum that is to be allocated to charity when in 95 areas out of the 98 nothing at all is given. While in those areas and in other areas where cinemas may be opened, one-eighth of one per cent. devoted to charity is regarded as sufficient, we are solemnly to be asked that 5 per cent. of that sum, which will be 5 per cent. of one-eighth of one per cent., shall be devoted for the purpose of improving films.
In the circumstances, the Amendment to the Amendment which I have down, in line 2, after the word "authority," to insert the words "not less than 20 per centum, and," is a reasonable Amendment. Many Members have been under the impression that in the London area all the profits have gone to charity. I do not want to use the argument about charity at all, except to point out what has been pointed out to me by a gentleman who does not mind his name being disclosed to the House. He is Mr. Adams, who was the founder and formerly managing director of Provincial Cinematograph Theatres, and he estimates that the advantage which is being given to the cinema proprietors will mean another £2,500,000 a year going to America. He said in a letter to me:
The charity Clause must be strong and substantial, and if our charities do not get the benefit, the American film producers most certainly will.
In those circumstances, I ask the Government to accept my reasonable Amendment, and a further Amendment in order to make the matter clear, after the second word "the," in line 2, to insert the word "whole."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move his Amendment yet, because we have not yet got the words out of the paragraph.

Sir B. PETO: I have made my speech, and when the time comes I will merely formally move my Amendments. If they
are carried, we shall get something definite put into the Bill as to a contribution to charity, and we shall make sure that contributions for charity are not confined to the area of the London County Council.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Division No. 266.]
AYES.
[10.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Milner, Major James


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hall, George H. (Me'thyr Tydvil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Batey, Joseph
Harbord, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Bernays, Robert
Hartland, George A.
Peat, Charles U.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Price, Gabriel


Briant, Frank
Hepworth, Joseph
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chaster City)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brian)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Christie, James Archibald
Janner, Barnett
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stones, James


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, Sir Alfred
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leckle, J. A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Liddall, Walter S.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin, Major John J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmors)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McLean, Major Alan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Magnay, Thomas
Sir Basil Peto and Sir Wilfrid Sugden.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
 


Grimston, R. V.
Millar, Sir James Duncan





NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Carver, Major William H.
Doran, Edward


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cassels, James Dale
Duckworth, George A. V.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Ma). Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm., W)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Conant, R. J. E.
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cook, Thomas A.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, Douglas
Fermoy, Lord


Boulton, W. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crossley, A. C.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Fox, Sir Gifford


Buchan, John
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Ganzoni, Sir John


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir William Henry
Gledhill, Gilbert


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Denville, Alfred
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dickie, John P.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Donner, P. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "authority," to insert the words "not less than twenty per centum, and."

Sir W. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 186.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nichols
McKie, John Hamilton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Graves Marjorie
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salt, Edward W.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Guinness, Thomas L, E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hales, Harold K.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hanbury, Cecil
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Harris, Sir Percy
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Morgan, Robert H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Tatnes)
Munro, Patrick
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
North, Captain Edward T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hornby, Frank
Nunn, William
Summersby, Charles H.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Ormiston, Thomas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Patrick, Colin M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pearson, William G.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Petherick, M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ker, J. Campbell
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Kimball, Lawrence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Knight, Holford
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Weymouth, Viscount


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsden, E.
White, Henry Graham


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ray, Sir William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Leigh, Sir John
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Levy, Thomas
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Winterton, Ht. Hon. Earl


Lindsay, Noel Kar
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Womersley, Walter James


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)
Robinson, John Roland
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



Mabane, William
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


McKeag, William
Runge, Norah Cecil
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.

Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 5, after the word "therewith," insert the words:
and calculated by reference to such estimated profits or to such proportion of them as the authority think fit.

In line 6, after the word "paid," insert the words:
as to the prescribed percentage thereof to the authority for the purpose of being transmitted to the Cinematograph Fund constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and as to the remainder thereof.

In line 10, leave out the word "such," and insert instead thereof the words
sums calculated by reference to such estimated."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after the word "conviction," to insert the words:
to the forfeiture of his licence to open on Sunday and.
In this Bill, the owner of a cinematograph who offends the law may be fined up to £20, and there is no further penalty upon him except that he shall be
liable to pay that sum as a debt due to that person. Any sum recoverable under this Sub-section may, if it does not exceed 50 pounds, be recovered summarily as a civil debt.
The Home Office is very charitably disposed towards the cinematograph owner who breaks this law. I have not been able to understand why the law is not worded so as to bring a little more pressure upon him when he breaks the law. If a motorist offends against the Road Traffic Act or any other Act, his licence is taken away, sometimes on the first offence. He has not, I believe, a chance of paying a fine. There are other cases even too where a licence is taken away if the person who holds the licence offends against the law. In this case there is nothing by way of penalties except a fine up to £20, that he shall pay a sum as a debt, and that the debt is recoverable as civil debt.
This Amendment does not intend that the owner shall forfeit his licence for any day except Sunday. I think I am right in explaining the words of my own Amendment to that effect. When the licence is forfeited, it will be forfeited only for the Sunday opening. I think
that is the proper way of putting it. I am very anxious that the local authority shall have a right to take away the licence for opening on Sundays, for this reason. The Under-Secretary will know that small shopkeepers in this country break the law continually, and it pays them, so I am informed, to meet a fine of 5s. every Monday morning and continue to break the law every Sunday, because they receive more in profits by opening and paying the fine than would otherwise be the case. It seems to me, therefore, that, if the proprietor of a cinema defies this Measure when it becomes law, it is not too much to ask that his licence for opening on Sundays shall be taken away from him.

Mr. MAGNAY: I beg to Second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot advise the House to accept this Amendment. The penalties, from the monetary point of view, which are imposed by the Bill, are high, because the hon. Gentleman will realise that £20 is the penalty in respect of each offence. If a cinema proprietor has broken the labour provision with regard to the people he employs in his cinema, he has to pay a maximum of £20 in respect of every one of them.

Mr. DAVIES: Not exceeding £20.

Mr. STANLEY: I quite agree that there are certain cases in which the only proper penalty for flagrant disregard of the conditions under which Sunday opening is allowed would be the withdrawal of permission to open on Sundays, but the point is that that power is already possessed by the local authority, and it is unnecessary to give a similar power to the magistrates. Provided that a local authority states on its licence, as I believe London does now, that permission to open on Sundays will be liable to be withdrawn if any of the conditions are violated, then, immediately a condition is violated, the local authority is entitled to withdraw the licence. It sterns to me that that power is better left in the hands of the local authority, who will know fully the circumstances of each case, and, therefore, will only apply this rather drastic power when they are satisfied that that is the only proper punishment. I made a suggestion in Committee, which I would repeat now,
that it is possible that, although London, which has long been doing this kind of thing, knows of its powers, and knows that by putting these words on the licence it can make those powers operative, other authorities which in future may have to grant licences for Sunday opening may not be aware of them, and I suggested that when, as we shall have to do after this Bill passes, we circularise licensing authorities informing them of the changes made by this Measure, we should include in the circular some reference to this power, and make it clear that any licensing authority can obtain this power provided that the necessary words are included on the face of the certificate issued. I think that it is better to leave the matter to the licensing authority, and this Amendment which would only extend the same power to the magistrates, is one which I could not accept.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of that promise of the hon. Gentleman, which I feel sure he will carry out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 8, leave out from the word "any" to the word "be" in line 9, and insert instead thereof the words "authority or person."

In line 10, leave out the word "person," and insert instead thereof the words "authority or person, as the case may be."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
(6) This section shall not extend to Wales and Monmouthshire.
I think I am right when I say that for some years the House has not been troubled very much with questions relating to Wales. I well remember that there was a time many years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) first became a Member of the House, when the voice of Wales was frequently heard. It may be necessary to deal with two points in connection with my Amendment. The first proposition that I have to make is that Parliament can, in accordance with precedent, and should in proper circumstances legislate for Wales as distinct from England. If that proposition is admitted, I think the second is
that in this matter the opinion of Wales is strongly in favour of exclusion so far as cinemas are concerned and that, therefore, Wales should be excluded from the operation of this Clause. It is quite conceivable that even in this House there may be Members who are disposed to deny to Wales the right to separate legislation. One has frequently heard it said that Wales and Monmouthshire is simply a, geographical expression to represent 12 or 13 counties and that Wales has no more right to ask for separate legislation than any group of counties in England. But I submit that Wales is a distinct nationality from England with a separate language, history and tradition of its own and peculiar to itself and with its own national aspirations and ideals. In these days I scarcely think any voice would be raised against acknowledging the right of Wales to separate legislation.
The House of Commons is very fond of looking to precedent, and an appeal to precedent is always effective in this Assembly. Here I feel that I am on very strong ground. I have here a volume called "The Statutes of Wales," edited by an eminent county court judge. It may be a matter of surprise that in this volume, apart from the introduction, there are 280 closely printed octavo pages containing nothing but Statutes, or sections of Statutes, relating to Wales. Surely there is a precedent. In going through this volume I find that there have been two stages. In the earlier centuries legislation was enacted in opposition to the wishes of the Welsh people. It was oppressive and repressive legislation. Everything was done in order to stifle Welsh sentiment and to destroy the Welsh language. The efforts of legislation in that connection failed, and so great was the failure that there are today in this House, out of 36 Members representing the Principality, at least 23 who are able to speak the Welsh language not only colloquially but in public. I believe that in addition to that there are at any rate two or three hon. Members representing English constituencies who are also able to speak Welsh. What a difference compared with Scotland, which is left out of the Bill. I am told that of the Scottish Members there are only two who can speak the Gaelic language, and I very much doubt whether there is a single Member from Northern Ireland who can speak Irish.
That was the first stage of oppression in legislation. Then came, within the life of some of those who are in this Chamber to-night, another period when there was legislation in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh people. If I am not mistaken, one of the first Acts of Parliament passed in this connection was the Sunday Closing Act of 1881, which was introduced by a predecessor of mine in the representation of a portion of the county of Flint. I have looked up in Hansard the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I find that Mr. Gladstone spoke from the Treasury Box in support of the Bill, and there are sentences in his speech which are absolutely pertinent to the Amendment which is now before the House. I propose to read a few of those sentences. If I am not able to convince the House that my Amendment should be supported, I think that a reference to what Mr. Gladstone said on a very similar matter may perhaps influence a very large number of hon. Members in the House to-night. Listen to what he said on the 4th May, 1881:
Undoubtedly, it has not in the past been the habit of Parliament to look to Welsh opinion or to Welsh interests as a distinct independent factor in the constitution of this country as it has been in regard to England and Ireland. Wales has been regarded as in a closer relation to ourselves than either Scotland or Ireland, but I am bound to say that it appears to me that we have pushed those considerations too far. I am not going to set up an extravagant theory of nationality with regard to either Wales, Ireland or Scotland, but this I will say that where there is a distinctly formed Welsh opinion, as in the present case, upon a given subject which affects Wales alone, and the acceptance of which does not entail any public danger or public inconvenience to the rest of the Empire, I know no reason why respectful regard should not be paid to that opinion.
Further on he says:
Wales is, after all, a country with a people of its own, with a language of its own, with traditions of its own, with feelings of its own, and with a specially religious feeling and associations of its own.
Every word which Mr. Gladstone spoke on that occasion is appropriate and pertinent to the Amendment before the House to-night. That is the first of a series of Acts of this Legislature in connection with Wales. In 1889 the Welsh Intermediate Education Act was passed, and the Welsh University received its charter. Subsequently an Act of Parlia-
ment was passed in regard to the Welsh University. When the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs introduced the National Health Insurance Bill in 1911 special provision was made for Wales. Therefore, in standing here to move that Wales be excluded from the operation of the Bill I am simply following the course adopted by this House from time to time during the last 50 years. There is a further point which indicates that Wales stands by itself. I was coming through Whitehall a few days ago when I noticed one of the posters of the Empire Marketing Board. Four countries were referred to in connection with their agricultural and horticultural products. England came first—Wales had been separated from England—Northern Ireland came second, Wales third, and Scotland fourth. That is what we are asking for to-night, that we should be placed somewhere between Northern Ireland and Scotland and not associated with England in regard to the Bill. I think I have discharged the onus of proof so far as my first point is concerned, that Wales is entitled by precedent, in proper circumstances, to legislation of its own.
I come to the second point, on which it will be easier to discharge my duty. The opinion of Wales is strongly in favour of the terms of my Amendment and the House is not entitled to disregard the opinion of Wales. I have looked into the Division list on the three occasions that the House has voted on the Second Reading of the Bill. In connection with the 1931 Bill, five Welsh Members voted for and 25 against. In April of this year when the first Bill was introduced, six Welsh Members voted for and 24 against. When I raised this matter in Committee the Under-Secretary asked: "What about the last Bill?" —the Bill of the 27th May, 1932. On that occasion six voted for the Bill while the numbers against it had come down to nine. Hon. Members were here in the morning but they had to go away before the Division was reached. On this occasion I am sure that when the Division is taken there will be an overwhelming majority of Members from Wales and Monmouthshire voting in support of the Amendment. If Wales is entitled to legislation in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh people, could there be a better way of gauging that expression of opinion than the votes of
those who have been sent to this House from Wales representing the three political parties in the State? Apart from that, there has been an expression of opinion in various parts of Wales by means of resolutions from all the organised Free Church Associations. I have also heard from a large number of churches who have sent me copies of resolutions which have been passed. Many of them have gone to the Home Secretary. Most of them are in Welsh. [Hon. Members: "Read them!"] As the House seems to want to hear them, I will read one of the resolutions I have received:
Pasiwyd ein bod fel Egdwys yn erfyn yn daer ar y Llywodraeth adael allan Gymru a Sir Fynwy o'r Mesud uchod fel y gwneir gyda Scotland a Gogledd yr Werddon. Y mae parch Cymru i Ddydd yr Arglwydd yn adnabyddus a byddai bydoli'r Dydd yn anghyfiawnder mawr a'r Dywysogaeth.
The resolution says:
As a church we urgently ask the Government to leave Wales and Monmouthshire out of the scope of the Sunday Entertainments Bill. The respect which Wales has to the Lord's Day is well known, and to secularise the Lord's Day would be a great injustice to the Principality.
The Under-Secretary has suggested that many of these resolutions have been passed by people who did not appreciate their effect, but at any rate the people who have passed these resolutions know that the Bill is going to legalise what is at the present moment illegal. If the Under-Secretary requires an intimate knowledge of the terms of the Bill I am afraid that he would find among those who support the Bill many hon. Members who are somewhat ignorant of its purpose, and more ignorant than ever of its details. When this question was considered in Committee the Under-Secretary said this—and I am going to urge the House to deal with the Amendment on the lines suggested by him:
So far as this Bill is concerned, however the practical and immediate effect of applying it to Wales is not different from the immediate effect of leaving Wales out. The latest information that we have is that there is no area in Wales where cinemas are open, and only one in Monmouthshire. That means that the part of the Bill which gives permission to certain areas to open is, so far as Wales is concerned, a dead letter, and it does not matter whether You leave Wales out of the Bill or put it in."— [OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 16th June, 1932; col. 146.]
I appeal to the House to leave Wales out, because it does not matter in the
least from the point of view of the Under-Secretary whether you leave Wales in or leave Wales out. But it does matter a great deal so far as public sentiment in Wales is concerned, and it is with that that my colleagues and myself are concerned. We know the depth of feeling there is in the Principality on this matter. That feeling has been expressed in the last few weeks in an unmistakable manner, and we therefore appeal to the Under-Secretary, as it makes no difference at all what you do, to meet the wishes of the people of Wales, and to exclude Wales from the operation of the Clause.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has put the case so very ably, and has covered the ground so well, that there is not much to add to what he said. I think he convinced the House that Wales in the past has been treated on special occasions in regard to special legislative enactments as being in a special position. I think that clearly indicates that Wales has its own special point of view in these matters. We are not here dealing with a purely county matter. There are counties in England differing fundamentally from each other in their traditions and dialects and in their physical features, but this is a matter which concerns the sentiment of the nation. This is looked upon in Wales in rather a more pronounced way than it is in England. Our complaint is that the hon. Gentleman has not given consideration to that sentiment which has been expressed to him from numerous organisations in Wales, and of which he is cognisant. I am sure the House will agree that no observer of Wales, however casual an observer he may be, will deny the fact that Wales has, in this particular matter of the Sunday, rather a special position, a special heritage and special ideals.
A large number of writers have written of Wales, and I think every writer has paid tribute to this aspect of its life. I suggest the hon. Gentleman should read a book which has just come out called "In Search of Wales." He will find it a very interesting book. It is by an observer who is not of Welsh nationality, and it shows that Wales has very definite conditions of its own in this matter. I spent many years in Scotland
and I know something about the Scottish Sabbath. I know some people are apt to poke fun at it, but it depends on the point of view you take on these matters. In regard to the Sabbath in Wales, those who point to a Scottish Sabbath as being dreary, may possibly think that the Welsh Sabbath is more dreary, but it all depends on the point of view. At all events, Wales is not behind Scotland in its special regard for this day of the week. It is very hard in these difficult economic times to raise enthusiasm about any issue, but I know of no issue since I have been a Member of this House that has raised a greater feeling in Wales than this issue of the inclusion of Wales in Clause I of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman in Committee the other day rather poked fun at the large number of postcards received against this Bill, but I submit that no hon. Member can ignore correspondence which he receives from his constituents. No Member can ignore the general trend of the correspondence that he receives from his constituency. I am not referring to the large number of postcards received from time to time. I have not had a single letter or postcard from my constituency in favour of this Bili—not one. I would like to know how many Members have had such communications.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the hon. Member say how many postcards or letters he has had against the Bill?

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: They are so numerous that I have not counted them. I started to count, but gave it up in despair as a completely hopeless task. I have received many hundreds from my own constituency, but not one single letter of protest or suggestion asking me to support the Bill. The Under-Secretary admitted in Committee that there is only one cinema open in Wales on a Sunday, in Monmouthshire.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Not in Monmouthshire.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Then only one in the whole of Wales. Is that not clear proof that we do not want local option for Wales in this matter? Why, therefore, does the Under-Secretary want to bring in Wales willy-nilly? I suggest that the question of principle involved here, the sentiment of a nation, is such that no Government can afford to dis-
regard it. This is a democratic House of Commons. On what principle are we to act unless we are to be guided by the voices and the votes of those who sent here the representatives of their constituencies? I understand that one hon. Member is going to oppose this Amendment. We can compliment him on his courage, but I think he will go down in Welsh history on that account as the only one representing the whole of Wales who will dare to get up in this House and support this Clause.
11.0 p.m.
I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment. It is a very reasonable and fair Amendment. I suggest that no Amendment embodying an important principle has received a clearer or more overwhelming mandate in its favour from the people most concerned. It has the support of the Welsh members. I am sorry that we have not in the House now the Welsh party that we used to have in the old days. Wales has been divided politically. I differ from some of my hon. Friends on many matters of vital political principle, but on this matter we are all unanimous. The last election showed that Wales was almost wholly favourable to the National Government. There are exceptions, of course, to be found in the Labour party opposite, and my distinguished Friend the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and those who act with him, took a certain attitude. I rather think we shall have the right hon. Gentleman inside the Government, in a very short time, as I see the trend of the times. I am also sorry that the Home Secretary is not in his place. I wish to pay my respectful tribute to the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has handled the Bill, but I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who has been so closely associated with Welsh movements in the past, would accept this Amendment if we were able to appeal to him personally. I trust that the Under-Secretary will see his way to accepting it, on the ground of reason, of principle and of language. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) telling me with great pride of the fact that he spoke Gaelic. I should not be regarded as representative of my constit-
uency at all if I did not speak Welsh, which shows that the conditions as regards the language are more emphasised in Wales. So are the conditions in regard to Sunday observance. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will accept this reasonable Amendment which we put forward on behalf of the most gallant and patriotic portion of the British Isles.

Mr. STANLEY: At this late hour the House will excuse me if I do not deal as exhaustively with this subject as the hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment. I quite appreciate of course the general case which they have put up as to Welsh national sentiment, although I would point out that, in the course of their very full speeches, the points of contact with the Bill which we are discussing were very few. I also have some suspicion that the national sentiment of Wales has been rather exacerbated by the fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland are omitted from the Bill. Let me assure hon. Members that this involves no question of inferiority of status. Northern Ireland has been excluded because this is one of the transferred subjects and is within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Scotland is excluded because the law, both of Sunday observance and in regard to cinema licences, is different in Scotland and no Bill framed on these lines would be applicable to Scotland. Indeed the only modern decision which we have on the subject tends to the belief that the opening of Sunday cinemas is already legal in Scotland. I hope that I can remove any fear from the minds of my hon. Friends that we are putting a stigma on Wales by including Wales in the Bill while we are excluding Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Now let me deal with the practical aspect. Perhaps hon. Members will not mind if I do not deal with what Gladstone said in 1881 but deal rather with what this Bill does in 1932. I am always told by Welsh Members when they ask for exclusion that there is no demand in Wales for Sunday cinema opening and that cinemas do not open in Wales on Sunday. There is a certain doubt as to whether there is not opening in one area. However, I take them at their word. If cinemas do not open in Wales on Sundays, then obviously the part of the
Bill which legalizes the opening of cinemas in areas where they have opened up to now is a dead letter, and as far as Wales is concerned, it does not matter twopence whether it is left in or left out.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: rose—

Mr. STANLEY: Will the hon. Member allow me? I have not yet exceeded his limit. As far as any immediate change coming into operation because of the passage of this Bill is concerned, it does not matter whether Wales is in or out, if hon. Members are right and in fact no Sunday cinemas are open in Wales. The other question is the procedure which is to be adopted by areas which in future want to have the right to open on Sundays, even though they do not do so now. Let me make clear to hon. Members what, I think, is not clear to some of them, and, I am certain, is not clear to the people who send them postcards on the subject, and that is that whether you include Wales in this Bill or whether you do not, once the Bill is passed, any area in Wales will have the normal, natural right of any local area in the country of approaching the House of Commons by private Bill procedure and asking permission of the House of Commons to open cinemas on Sundays.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: An expensive job.

Mr. STANLEY: The only effect of putting Wales in this Bill is that if they want to exercise that right which they possess anyhow of applying to Parliament for the right to open cinemas, they can do it in a less expensive way. What is the harm in that I We are told that Wales does not want the Bill, that no area is going to change, that this feeling always has been and always will be. Is the hon. Member who interrupted me just now going to say that we shall undermine that feeling simply because we make it cheaper for a local authority to apply to Parliament? Is that the only protection that he feels that a local area in Wales has got against the overwhelming demand of its population for a Sunday opening, that the procedure by way of private Bill is an expensive one, and that if we were to give Wales the same opportunities that English authorities will have of approaching Parliament by a cheaper method, then the demand from their constituents would be irresistible?
I had hoped that hon. Members for Wales had greater faith in their professions that neither now nor in the future will Wales demand the opening of Sunday cinemas.
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that Wales does not want local option. Wales has got it, whether it is included in this Bill or not. Whatever the fate of this Amendment any area in Wales, if they choose to follow the ordinary procedure by private Bill, can apply to the House of Commons, and if the House approves, they can have the local opening of cinemas. If the Amendment is defeated and Wales is included, they have to go through the same procedure, with the same poll of the ratepayers, the same notices and the same application to Parliament. All that we do is to cut out the expensive, cumbersome and quite unnecessary Committee stage in the House of Commons; and when you sift down all this fine talk that we have had, fine and, I agree, sincere talk, about national sentiment, when we are told of the affront that we are putting on Wales, we come down to the fact that you are simply going to vote whether, if on any future occasion any Welsh borough want to open on Sundays, they have to have the Committee stage upstairs or whether they get it without it. I hope hon. Members will look at it in that way and realise that as far as the present interests of Wales are concerned, its inclusion makes no difference, and if in future any Welsh authority should wish, with the consent and desire of its inhabitants, to have local opening of cinemas on Sundays, we see no reason why they should not have the same privilege as English authorities of approaching the House of Commons for its permission in the cheapest and least cumbersome way.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It will perhaps be well for a Member for an English constituency to say a word on this subject. I support the Amendment for several reasons. The Under-Secretary was grossly unfair to the mover and seconder. What is his argument? Ho said that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland and Scotland because the law is different there.

Mr. STANLEY: It does not apply to Northern Ireland because this is one of
the transferred subjects which is within their competence. It does not apply to Scotland because the law is different.

Mr. DAVIES: It comes to the same thing. What the Welsh people are claiming is that all the differences that prevail between Northern Ireland and England and between Scotland and England are emphasised ten-fold as between Wales and England in this matter. The hon. Gentleman asks why the law should differ as between England and Wales, and says that if the Welsh people do not apply for orders under this Bill the Measure is a dead letter in Wales. He might as well use the argument that the law in relation to murder and capital punishment will never apply to Wales as long as there is no murder there; and that all the laws of England will never apply to Wales unless the Welsh people commit offences against them. It reduces the whole thing to an absurdity. I should have thought that the Home Office would have given way on this Amendment. I have never been able to understand their attitude towards it because there will be no cost to the Government in the administration of the Bill. The local authorities will do all the work, and there is no financial reason or administrative difficulty why the Government should not accept the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the points that are fundamental to the Amendment. He can say what he likes, but the Welsh nation on an issue of this kind, rightly or wrongly, looks at life differently from other sections of the British people. There is a law on the Statute Book which divides Whales from England in respect of the drink problem. Why should the law differ as between Wales and England on that question? Why should public houses be closed in Wales and opened in England were it not for the fact that the philosophy of life of the Welsh people in relation to the drink problem differs from that of England or even of Scotland? The Church of England is disestablished in Wales. Why should Parliament disestablish the Church of England in Wales? Simply because the Welsh people in their philosophy of life and religion differ fundamentally from the English people. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong, but the fact is there. I will
probably astonish the Under-Secretary in what I am about to say. The Welsh people look upon these problems differently because they have a language of their own, and it differs from the English language. The only vehicle for the expression of a man's mind is his language. I speak with some feeling about that, because I could not speak the English language when I was 15 years of age. A nation that has clung to its own language against the mightiest language in the world, the English language, cannot be absorbed in its ideas even by a mighty people like the English. A nation that can do that in relation to its language ought to be given preferential treatment in this Bill. It will astonish some hon. Members to know that the Welsh people have a literature of their own.
I wish the hon. Gentleman would agree to this Amendment. He would not lose anything, because no principle of the Bill would be violated. I plead with him, and I do not want to use threats. I have tried to study the minds of some of the small nations of Europe. I have recently been in the Ukraine to see how the Polish Government treat the small nationality there. I know something, too, of the difficulties of bilingualism in Europe. Therefore, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will grow up among the young people of Wales, and it is growing now, the same spirit of resentment that has already shown itself in Ireland. Why is it that there are Scottish Nationalist candidates for Parliament? Because Scottish people think—I do not know whether they are right or wrong—that they are not getting fair play from this Parliament. If the argument holds good 'n Scotland, where they have greater local autonomy than in Wales, how much greater is the argument for Welsh nationalism? I plead with the House not to start the idea of offending these small nations and getting them warring against each other. The English people have been very kind to me; they have been generous. But I wish some of those who sit on the Treasury Bench knew a little more of the sentiments that move the Welsh people. I trust that whatever view the Government may take of the Amendment the majority of the House will pay its tribute to a nation with traditions that are centuries old and a nation that will probably live longer than the prophets expect or desire.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: It must be obvious to the House that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has attempted with no mean degree of success to draw a red herring across this discussion. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), in a typically moderate and persuasive speech, has invited the House to exclude Wales from the operations of this Bill, and he was ably supported by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones). As Member for the south division of a city which, I think, can rightly claim to be known as the unproclaimed capital of the Principality, may I say that so far as the city of Cardiff is concerned, and I may even be so bold as to say so far as South Wales is concerned, there is no evidence that the people there are in favour of the Principality being excluded from the Measure. As representative of an industrial area in Cardiff where the conditions of living are far from good, where the people have to work extremely hard for little money, I say that if we can give them the opportunity of applying to their local authority for permission to visit the cinema on Sundays if they think fit to do so, it is our duty to do it. I am amazed at the lack of faith that my two hon. Friends displayed in the discretion and judgment of local authorities in the Principality. As the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, it seems most curious that while they support local option in regard to the liquor question they rule it out as being impracticable and unfair on the question of Sunday opening.
Before I pursue that, I would like, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of several of my hon. Friends to protest against the action of the Government in this matter. For some reason best known to the Government, they went out of their way to exclude Welsh Conservative opinion entirely from the Select Committee which considered this most important subject. Not only that, but my hon. and gallant Friend, the Under-Secretary, replied to the Debate before any of us who are opposed to the view which has already been expressed had had an opportunity of voicing the other side. Unfortunately for Wales, it is not only the National Government who go out of their way to snub the Principality and its representatives. I would like to take this opportu-
nity of telling the Government that although nine Members, some of whom were alleged to support the National Government in this Parliament, voted against this Measure in Committee as well as on Second Reading, nevertheless there were those of us who took a different point of view. Supporting the National Government as we do to the best of our ability in the Principality, I hope that the National Government in the future, when Measures of this kind come up for review, will see that this point of view is given fair-play and place on all subjects of this kind.
The people of South Wales and of Cardiff are not peculiar in religious matters, any more than the people of England. There is a very representative opinion in that city which feels that if a man wishes to go to church on Sunday, or to a cinema, to play tennis or to work in his garden, that is entirely his own affair, and that if there is any question of settling it with anybody, he can settle it with his God and not with his Government. I never heard such hypocrisy and cant as has been expressed in this Debate. I ask hon. Members on all sides of the House to realise that although there are only six Conservative Members in the Pricipality today, that is due to the fact that many Conservative candidates stood down in the national interest at the last General Election. It is important to get a proper political opinion) on a matter of this kind and to study the Debates which have taken place, not only in this Parliament, but in Parliaments in the past. On behalf of at least three hon. Members, representing constituencies in the Principality, I hope most sincerely that the House will reject this Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, but, after hearing the last speaker, I would like to know on whose behalf he has been speaking. This question has been discussed by the two hon. Members from North Wales from the religious standpoint, and I have received letters and resolutions from the Nonconformist bodies, from the Anglican Church, and from Roman Catholics—from representatives of all religious views so far as my constituents are concerned. It is not very often that the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) and myself agree, but he will agree with me on this point, that even from the trade union and working-class standpoint in
South Wales there is nothing that our people in Wales hate more than Sunday work.
I represent the iron and steel trade. In Scotland and in England there is Sunday labour in the steel trade, which is a continuous trade, but in South Wales, at the request not only of the men, but of employers who have religious convictions, the steel trade in South Wales does not commence working until after 12 o'clock on Sunday night, and we have had an agreement with the employers on that point for over 30 years. Therefore, I would ask the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) whether he is speaking on behalf of the steelworkers of Cardiff.

Captain A. EVANS: I am speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), the hon. and gallant Member for Brecon (Captain W. Hall), and 36,000 people in my own division.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I represent the steel-workers in Newport, and there is not a single one of them who has to work until after 12 o'clock on Monday morning. Trade unionists in South Wales are all opposed to any kind of Sunday labour, and I guarantee that, although the employers in South Wales in my industry-are always prepared—they did during the War—to pay the men double time for Sunday work, if they offered the men in my industry treble time they would refuse to work on Sundays. I believe that exactly the same is true of the miners, who have always been opposed to Sunday labour.
From the sentimental standpoint there is nothing that can hurt the feeling of the people of Wales more than to include them in this Bill. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) quoted a passage that he had received from one of the local authorities there. Let me quote two lines, which give the essence of the belief of the Welsh people:
O fy enaid nae angofiar dydd y dactn y 'Meichian' mawr yn rhydd.
I do not want to give a Welsh sermon, but I want to state the feeling of the people of Wales. The most important thing that the people of Wales believe in is the Resurrection, and that Resurrection took place on a Sunday. They believe in the two lines that I have just quoted.
That is the day on which they believe they got their freedom from the shackles of the grave, and I want to make an appeal to the House from the sentimental standpoint and from the trade union standpoint to accept the Amendment that has been proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) accused the mover of the Amendment of trying to draw a red herring across the trail, but he himself brought down on the trail a veritable shoal. First of all, he claimed to speak for South Wales. There is such a county as Carmarthen. There is another county known as Pembrokeshire and another known as Breconshire. He represents a little area of Cardiff in Parliament. I live there and I think I can claim to know it a jolly sight better than he does. He represents a part of Cardiff which I should cite as the last area in the world to be representative of Welsh opinion. Somalis, Arabs, Chinamen—you can scour the world and you will find every country represented in Cardiff. I can understand the Arabs and Somalis desiring Sunday opening and I congratulate them on having so eloquent a representative in the House of Commons, but South Cardiff is not a microcosm of Welsh sentiment and life. I would implore the House, however much it may respect the personal opinions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to pay no regard whatever to the case he has put up. This is a generous House. I can quite understand the cogency of the arguments that have been put up for the opening of cinemas in England, but in Wales for quite a number of years the Sabbath has meant something. It is not that we think going to church or chapel is indispensable to salvation, but somehow or other the observance of the Sunday, as it were, embodies the national conscience. One hon. Member has put in a plea for family life. Lads leave school at the most critical period of their lives. I suppose a boy at 14 to 18 is what he will be from forty to eighty. This period of adolescence, is really the formative period in character building. To-day he has not the discipline of work. He is withdrawn from influences at the very time when those influences ought to be operative in the moulding of character. From personal observation, I think much of the moral
laxity in America is due to the fact that all these social inhibitions have been removed. Nothing is sacred. We also must exercise care.
It is not that the observance of the Sunday is intrinsically of tremendous importance, but the fact that you have on one day in the week a social conscience expressed has a most potent moral effect upon the character of our youth. We in Wales are accustomed to that. It has meant something to us. The British people, English, Scottish or Welsh, in my judgment are the greatest people on earth. They will not succumb to panic. They keep a cool and clear head. It is not merely a matter of blood. It is a matter of the kind of society which we have fashioned and in which we have been brought up. I think that we shall lose a good deal if we secularise the Sabbath. The Somali, Italians and Arabs, and people of South Cardiff may not be concerned, but I know something of the Welsh populations of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire, and it does mean something to them. I want to make an appeal to the Government. It is said that there is nothing to be gained or lost. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff very flippantly says, "Why do you not trust the people; why do you not have local option?" For this reason, that you will exacerbate and confound local politics. The question of whether there should be an application for a licence will, in some areas, be a supreme issue in municipal politics, and Heaven knows there are already sufficient issues to occupy attention.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member realises, of course, that, even if Wales were left out of the Bill, it can still become an issue in municipal politics whether or not a Private Bill should be promoted.

Mr. EVANS: I do not know whether I agree altogether with the hon. Gentleman, but in any case it strengthens my case to say that whether Wales is in or not, it has the same machinery. If you exclude Wales you pay tribute to something. I am not going to appeal merely on grounds of national sentiment but on the ground of something which is higher than national sentiment. I do not want to talk about it, but after all, religion is just this. One ought not to be ashamed
of it. It is something which is ingrained. There are people who never go near a chapel or a church, but they do value their Sunday. The quietude of our country lanes, the restfulness and the delight of it all, does mean something of psychological and moral importance to the people. I would appeal to the Government. It does not matter whether we have the same machinery. That argument has been taken away by the hon. Member, so the only thing left is whether you should respect the sentiment which has been expressed down the years. It may mean little to people who do not know Wales and have not been nurtured in the traditions and atmosphere of Wales. I appeal to the magnanimity of the House. I do not put it on any base grounds, but I appeal to the Government to make a gesture. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Wales has played its part in the country of the British Empire. It will play it still. We do not ask for generous or specialised treatment, or for something which is difficult to give. We simply ask that the Government make this recognition of a passionate regard for the higher sanctities of life and make this concession to us. If they do so they will make Wales a grateful country. We are not asking much. I appeal to the Government even now, at this last moment, to make this concession to us.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: Two phrases have been used in opposition to the Amendment that I cannot help thinking were rather unfortunate. The Undersecretary, in referring to the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment, spoke of their fine thought. If I may say so, as a humble private Member, speaking of so august a person as the Under-Secretary, it was rather an offensive phrase.

Mr. STANLEY: Honestly, I can assure not the hon. Member but the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment that the remark was not intended in the least to be offensive. I meant that I thought their speeches were full of very fine sentiment, but I said that it did not coincide with the very small point we were settling.

Mr. EVANS: I am not the only one who thought that. Not only was the phrase offensive, but the tone in which it was said added to the offence. [Hon.
Members: "No!"] I accept gladly the statement which the Under-Secretary has made. The other unfortunate phrase was used by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), when he protested against "this cant and hypocrisy." There is neither cant nor hypocrisy about the Amendment. It has been brought forward because we believe that it represents the convictions of the great majority of the people of Wales and because we believe that those convictions are deeply and fiercely held, and that they are convictions that represent the real views of the Welsh people. The observance of Sunday happens to be one of the great factors which has helped to build up the character of the Welsh people and you cannot blame them if they are jealous of any proposals which in their view tend to detract from those characteristics which have enabled them to build up their reputation. The Under-Secretary put forward two defences. One was that it does not matter whether Wales is in or out of the Bill, because a local authority can by Private Bill, if it so desires, seek to enable cinemas to be open in Wales on Sunday. With great respect I dissent from that view. That could only be done if Wales was included in the Bill. If we exclude Wales, I suggest to the Under-Secretary and his advisers that no local authority could be means of a Private Bill repeal a public law. The Sunday Observance Act is a public law which, apart from the provisions of this Bill, cannot be repealed by a Private Act. If I am wrong, what is the point of the Bill? The whole point is that they cannot do that by Private Bill except by the authority given in this Bill. We believe that this Bill offends the convictions of the great majority of the people of Wales. It is not a question as to whether we like to go to cinemas on Sunday or whether we approve of the way the Welsh people observe Sunday. Every decent man tries to act in such a way as not to offend his neighbours and friends, and we say as representatives from Wales that it would be offending the convictions of the great majority of the Welsh people if this Bill were to be put into operation in any part of Wales.
The second part of the Under-Secretary's defence was this: "Why do you
complain, seeing that you have local option?" The difficulties of carrying on municipal life at the present time are sufficiently great without adding to them, and I can conceive of nothing which is going to add more to the difficulties of municipal elections than the introduction of the question whether Sunday observance shall be kept, or not. It is one of the worst possible things from the point of view of good government for this sort of thing to be referred to a municipal election. We are not asking anything different from the treatment Wales has received in the past. Wales and Monmouthshire received exceptional treatment in regard to temperance legislation and Sunday closing and we are not asking the House to take any exceptional step in proposing that these precedents should be followed. Wales is entitled to ask for this concession. This is not the first time that a Bill of this character has been before the House of Commons. The last Government found it impossible to deal with this question and the present Government are only able to do so because they are a National Government, and being a National Government we ask them to pay respect to the opinions and traditions of a part of the nation, small if you like, but a loyal part, which deserves this consideration.

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: The argument put forward by the Under-Secretary that quite apart from this Bill local authorities in Wales can still promote their own private legislation is not a good argument. There can clearly be no power for any local authority to promote a private Bill to enable cinemas to open on Sundays any more than they have power to promote a private Bill to repeal Clauses in the Larceny Act. The Bill, it it is applied to Wales, will alter the position altogether. The application of the Bill illustrates the anomalies as regards its application to England and Wales. The argument in its favour is that it clarifies the law and enables something to be done on Sundays which is at present illegal. Without prejudice to what may or may not be done on Sundays there is no doubt that at the present moment the Sunday laws are in a completely chaotic state. A farmer may legitimately carry on his business on Sunday, but a farm labourer works unlawfully on a Sunday, because he is a work-
man within the meaning of the Sunday Observance Act. If I want to buy a paper in Aberystwyth on Sunday I cannot do so from an ordinary neswagent but I must go to a man who sells them in the square at Aberystwyth. The reason is that the Chief Constable would prosecute the man who opened his shop for the sale of newspapers on Sundays, whereas the man who does not ordinarily carry on the business is immune. That is true of London, but the police take no action in London. In Wales the law would be enforced in regard to the ordinary tradesman, but it is not the case in London. If you apply this Bill to Wales you are going to say that one particular industry shall be immune. Why should you put this industry in this privileged position? Why should you give them liberty to open on Sundays whereas other tradesmen carrying on legitimate trade and working hard in these trying times are liable to be hauled before the magistrates if they open on Sundays?
The thing is indefensible, and I see no reason why Wales should not be excluded from the Bill. Why should small tradesmen, working hard to make a living, be brought before the magistrates and fined 5s. on the Monday morning whereas cinema proprietors should be able to open in the same land and on the same day? It is merely unfairness between one set of traders and another. The law should be uniform for all citizens. I agree with the promoters of this Bill when they say that that you cannot compel people by law to go to church on Sunday. That is the last thing I desire, for religion is a matter of the spirit and of freedom, and the Church must make its own appeal. The position of the State is totally different. The State must at least see that the laws are uniform and treat every citizen alike. If Wales is included in the Bill, it will not be treating the citizens of Wales equally. Why make a difference between one class and another? That is the real ground for the exclusion of Wales from this Bill. The only reason why you are applying this Bill to England is that the law-breaking authority in London has forced the hands of the Government.
I do not want to raise the religious issue at all, but, in regard to Sunday observance, it is significant that in recent years two commissions of inquiry have been appointed, one by the Labour Government to inquire into the conditions
in agriculture in this country. It reported in 1925 and the purely economic experts upon it, who were concerned not with the moral issue, but with the agricultural issue, found, when they came to make a comparison between the state of agriculture in the different countries of Europe, that it was impossible to do so because there was a variation in the religious observance of Sunday. The commission of economic experts appointed by the League of Nations in 1924 to inquire into labour conditions in the different countries, came to the same conclusion, namely, that there was a difference in religious outlook which influenced the material and industrial outlook of the people. Why has this country and the Empire given a lead in world affairs? I think it is fairly clear that the one thing which makes England and the Empire stand out is the character of the British people. Is there anyone here who will not say that whether one observes Sunday in the orthodox fashion or not, it is just as well that there should be one day in the week when a man may stand apart and judge the moral and material work of the week? He is the better for it, and that position has been built up by the character of the British peoples. We are to-day opening the doors to the deluge from Eastern Europe. A material conception of life is flowing in from Eastern Europe and lowering our moral outlook. This is the first time in our history that we have departed from the Gold Standard. That is not unconnected with our moral outlook. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I would ask them why is it that sterling is accepted as currency throughout the world? [Interruption.] It is accepted with every respect because of the character of the British people behind it. I do not say that it is the only element, but it is one of the main elements that have gone to the building of the British character. We in Wales have cherished this for generations. Why should the Government at this stage bring in a Bill which not merely nullifies that to some extent, as far as the law is concerned, but nullifies it in such a way as to make a difference between one class of the community and another? There can be no justification for it on the ground of making the law clearer, nor indeed upon any moral ground.

Mr. JOHN: I would like to add my appeal to the Under-Secretary. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members to shout "Divide," but this is a very important question to the Welsh nation. The Welsh people are entitled to be heard in this House, equally with any other nationality. I do not understand why the Under-Secretary refuses to accept the Amendment. We are asking for nothing but what has been recognised for the last 30, 40 or 50 years. Conservative and Liberal Governments in the past have allowed it, and I cannot understand why a National Government cannot grant it. Whenever there has been any question applicable to the religious life of Wales, or the educational or cultural side of the Welsh nation, invariably the House of Commons has agreed that the Welsh were entitled to be treated as an entity. Why not now?
We are not asking for any departure from precedents. We do not claim that Wales has a better or higher religion than any other nation. All that we ask is the right and the liberty to live our own religious life in Wales. Out of the religious life of Wales there have grown certain small communities, and we ask that these communities, and that particular phase of religious life, should

Division No. 267.]
AYES.
[12.1 a.m.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hartland, George A.
Magnay, Thomas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hirst, George Henry
Mowing, Adrian C.


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Morrison, William Shepherd


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Janner, Barnett
Munro, Patrick


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, Gabriel


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Edwards, Charles
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Kirkwood, David
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Law, Sir Alfred
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leckie, J. A.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Liddall, Walter S.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McKie, John Hamilton
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES-


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Mr. Llewellyn-Jones and Dr. Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)


Adams, D. M, (Poplar, South)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Bossom, A. C.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Boulton, W. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

12 m.

be permitted to develop. The Under Secretary argues, "Inasmuch as there is only one cinema opening in Wales on Sundays, why not trust the people of Wales?" But does not that fact signify that the people of Wales do not want the cinemas opened on Sundays? If they do not want the cinemas opened on Sundays, why bring Wales within the purview of the Bill? The experience of the past demonstrates the possibilities of the future and the experience of the past in Wales demonstrates that the Welsh people do not want the cinemas to be open on Sundays. My appeal is not for something which is contrary to precedent. I only ask for a continuance of what has already been recognised in the case of Wales. To accept the Amendment will not lower the prestige of the National Government. If anything it will enhance the prestige of the Government, as showing their willingness to recognise the religious rights of a small nation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position and accept the Amendment. If he does so, Wales will be exceedingly grateful to him.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 193.

Bracken, Brendan
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harbord, Arthur
Poto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harris, Sir Percy
Potter, John


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rea, Walter Russell


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hepworth, Joseph
Rued, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reld, William Allan (Derby)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hornby, Frank
Robinson, John Roland


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Horobin, Ian M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr, Alfred B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooke, Douglas
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Copeland, Ida
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, Lawrence
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Daggar, George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Denville, Alfred
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dickie, John P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Donner, P. W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stones, James


Doran, Edward
Mabane, William
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Drewe, Cedric
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Duckworth, George A. V.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McLean, Major Alan
Summersby, Charles H.


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Tale, Mavis Constance


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fermoy, Lord
Milner, Major James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Weymouth, Viscount


Goff, Sir Park
Morgan, Robert H.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilton, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
North, Captain Edward T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Womersley, Walter James


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ormiston. Thomas
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ormeby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Hales Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.
Mr. Shakespeare and Captain


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Pearson, William G.
Austin Hudson


Hanbury, Cecil
Perkins, Walter R. D.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provision as to musical entertainments.)

Mr. KNIGHT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the word "for," to insert the words "stage performances."
I ask the indulgence of the House because at this late hour I have to bring to its notice several Amendments, which I propose to deal with together in order to save time. We have given attention to gallant little Wales, and I ask the House now to give a few minutes to a great institution in the State. These Amendments are in direct line with the principle of the Bill, which is accepted. The Bill is believed to give effect to a
widespread desire throughout the country for the provision of legitimate Sunday entertainments, and the safeguards embodied in the Bill satisfy all reasonable requirements. No entertainment is permitted under the Bill unless it is authorised by a local authority, which must act in accordance with local desires. Further, the industries affected must work under two special conditions—a limitation of days of labour and some diversion of profits. I tell the House frankly that there are certain commercial interests connected with the theatre who strongly resent a restriction to six days' labour and any interference
with the profits they may reap as a result of enlarged opportunities. These Amendments are moved with the single desire of asking this House, even at this late hour—and I deeply regret that this duty should have to be discharged at such a time—to consider what reason there is for excluding the theatre from the ambit of Sunday entertainments. It was said upstairs that Sunday theatres would involve considerable Sunday labour. I think it would be difficult to discover that it would involve a larger addition to Sunday labour than in the case of cinemas. An hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but I do not think the facts are anything like so clear as they appear to be to his mind. If we compare the mammoth cinemas of these days with the smaller houses which would operate, and, in fact, are now operating, as theatres, I think it will be realised that the labour involved in the theatre would not be greater than in the cinema.
Again, it is said that certain interests connected with the cinema fear that Sunday opening would threaten them with a seven-day week. The Bill itself prohibits any such extension of labour. But at this hour I do not stress these points. I make this general statement to the House: The question of Sunday entertainments is one of public importance not to be determined by any sectional interest, whether commercial or industrial. If the public desire to have Sunday entertainments I suggest, with all respect to the industries concerned, that they must accommodate themselves to the new situation, and, as far as I know, they are prepared to do so. Communications have been addressed to certain Members of this House—they have not reached me, but I have heard of them—stating that considerable commercial interests connected with the stage are averse to this proposal. That is not so. Those Members who attended the gathering at the House the other day saw there not only distinguished actors and actresses, but also two men who have had as large a commercial interest in the theatre in this great city as anyone.
Therefore, it is really a matter of prejudice to suggest that there is any considerable opposition to this proposal within the profession. I admit that there are differences of view, and those differences I respect; but on the main con-
sideration I suggest that there is considerable support within the profession for the extension for which I am asking. But I make the same observation as I made just now with regard to the industrial interests supposed to be affected: Whatever may be the attitude of the commercial interests, if Parliament, in its wisdom, and in response to a widespread public demand says on a revision of these matters, "We are going to include the stage," it is business and common-sense for those interests to recognise the situation.
12.30 p.m.
The question remains: "Is there any demand for this extension?" It is easy enough to say there is not. One must be guided by one's own observation and experience, and I do not hesitate to say, rash as it may be—and this is an hour for rashness—that if the opinion of this land were collected we should find very few people outside devoted religious communities who would not say, "If in response to public necessities the cinema must be opened on Sundays, the stage must be opened also." I want to say this finally—and I am deliberately curtailing what I desire to say, in deference to what I know to be the wish of the House—that the business here must be conducted in such a way as will commend itself to the intelligence of the public. If legislation sets up a discrimination it must be founded on reasons which the country can appreciate. I have had opportunities of consulting a large number of people outside, and there appears to be no reason which justifies this differentiation between the cinema and the stage with regard to Sunday performances. I am told that the large theatrical association, known as British Equity, which is not favourably disposed to Sunday opening, is united in the demand that there shall be equality of treatment between the cinema and the stage. I have no doubt that, in promoting Sunday entertainments, the stage will play its part. There is an expectation outside that an early review of these arrangements will take place. I accept the description repeated again and again by the Under-Secretary, who has so efficiently and splendidly conducted this Bill, that many years will pass before another opportunity will recur. It is a formula that he has applied to a number of demands, and I am satisfied that we
are dealing with a matter which, when it passes from this Floor, will not return for years to come. In that case, I would suggest, feeling strongly as I do on the matter, that a great British institution like the stage should have its rightful place in the revision of these arrangements.

Mr. HARTLAND: It seems very strange that one who is, like myself, totally opposed to this Measure, lock, stock and barrel, should be rising to support an addition to the extent of its operation, but that is not the only strange thing about this Bill. There is another remarkably strange thing about it which will probably appeal more particularly to those who are now to this House, and that is the undoubted conviction that must impress anybody who has heard the Debates, that the Bill is not popular, and that it does not represent the feelings of hon. Members or of the people throughout the country. That is proved by the fact that this is the third Measure that has been before the House. On a free vote it was defeated, and, if it were not for the fact that the Government have taken it under its wing, and that the Division Lobbies to-night are packed by forced cohorts, their are many Amendments which would have been defeated, and it is very doubtful whether the Bill would have had a renaissance from its final defeat. [Interruption.] Well, something equally significant. If the Sunday rights and privileges of the people are to be invaded, and if the Sabbath is to be desecrated, let it be desecrated fairly. If there is anything to be got out of the desecration of the Sabbath —and it is very amusing to notice the title of this Bill, the "Sunday Entertainments" Bill—and we have heard nothing to-night except about cinemas, then in Heaven's name let it be done fairly and let it not be done by giving a privileged position to one particular industry which is very little use and very little good for this country. If we are going to give privileges—and these people would not so strenuously demand these things if they were not privileges—to the American cinema combines, why should we not give a thought to the thousands of English actors and actresses who are out of jobs? If the Sunday performance is worth so much to the cinemas that they can get more time spent on it in the House than was spent
in considering coal, or iron and steel, it is worth some consideration on behalf of British people who want employment.
I am sure that Members of the House cannot have failed to notice the number of ex-theatre musicians and orchestra workers who to-day are parading the streets outside cafes and so on, trying to keep themselves from starvation because their own jobs have been taken from them by the cinemas; and I say that it is quite time this British Parliament stopped supporting cinemas, or, at least, if it is going to support them, did something to support the theatre. Sunday opening may be a small or may be a big thing, but the effort that is being made by business people who know their own business forces one to the belief that it is worth something to them. Sunday opening might be a valuable perquisite to the British theatres. It might perhaps enable plays to keep on that now have to go off after two or three weeks; it might keep our people in employment; and that is my only reason for almost violating my conscience by supporting an extension of the operation of a Bill which I loathe from start to finish. [Interruption.]
I am not speaking with a view to creating laughter; this is not a matter for laughter. I should not be standing here doing something that I do not like if I did not think it was very serious, and there are many British people to-day who think there is something very serious, not only in the particular point that I am now putting, but in the whole Bill, and' there are many Members of the House who will have something to answer for when they go back to meet their constituents. I cordially support this Amendment on two grounds: first, that if we are going to desecrate the Sabbath, we must desecrate it for our own benefit— [Interruption]; and, secondly, because I desire to second the appeal, which has been made in greater detail by my hon. and learned Friend, for justice to British workers.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There are a great many reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted, but I propose almost literally to follow the example of the Psalmist, and keep silence even from good words, though at this hour of the night that will not give pain to me or to anyone else in the House.
Over and over again in the course of this controversy we have been told that we ought to put the theatres on the same footing as the cinemas. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) actually said that this group of Amendments was directly in line with the principle already accepted in connection with the Bill; but, if he will permit me to say so, his Amendments are in direct conflict with the principles which have been accepted. It is a cardinal principle of this Bill with regard to cinemas to reproduce the status quo.
Only those districts in which Sunday licensing has been the practice are to be allowed, without coming to Parliament for further powers, to give Sunday licences. These Amendments would permit theatres in any district to be opened on Sundays for the performance of stage plays.
12.30 a.m.
It is a cardinal principle of the licensing of cinemas on Sundays that there shall be imposed conditions safeguarding the workers against a 7-day week and insuring that there shall be, out of the profits, a contribution to charity. Both those conditions are compulsory in the case of cinemas. If this Amendment were carried, they would be merely voluntary in the case of the theatres.

Mr. KNIGHT: If the Solicitor-General will look at the second Amendment on the following page he will find the same conditions attached.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am aware of the group of amendments with which we are dealing. What the hon. and learned Member does not appreciate is that his Amendment would only give power to the licensing authorities to attach these conditions. In the case of cinemas it is compulsory that they shall attach the conditions. Therefore, it is quite untrue to, say that this is following a principle already laid down. On the contrary, it is introducing an entirely revolutionary principle in regard to an industry never in the scope of Sunday opening at all. The hon. and learned Member takes exception to the suggestion that this Amendment would increase Sunday labour. Cinemas, as far as the staff in front of the curtain is concerned, may employ as many people as the theatres, but no one can deny that in the
theatre where the cast consists perhaps of a hundred people, you are employing more people than in the merely mechanical performance at the cinema. I do not propose to elaborate the matter beyond saying that diligent readers of The "Times" yesterday will have seen that the Society of West End Theatre Managers, the Society of Theatrical Managers,, and the Entertainments Protection Association— three very responsible theatrical bodies —have decided not to associate themselves with this Amendment for this, among other reasons, that there is no chance at this stage of the Government accepting it. That reason still holds good, and I invite the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. DENVILLE: I rise to oppose the Amendment on the ground that it is a wrecking Amendment. I also oppose it, because I really believe that it has been brought forward, not with the object of doing a good turn to the theatres, but of doing them an injury. What the Solicitor-General has said is quite correct. The West End Theatres Association with their president, the Theatrical Association with their president, and the touring managers of this country with myself as chairman, the Entertainments Protection League, and the Stage Guild which comprises the whole of the theatrical profession, waited on the Secretary of State as a delegation, including the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). After listening to the Home Secretary, we held a meeting at which all present resolved, owing to the difficulties in which the Government would be placed if the managers pressed this Amendment, which might mean the destruction of the Bill and would in any case create discussion making it awkward for the National Government, to drop the Amendment.

Mr. KNIGHT: I hope the hon. Member will not suggest that I was any party to that decision or that I was present. He will agree that the arguments put to the Home Secretary were the very arguments I repeated this evening.

Mr. DENVILLE: The Under-Secretary was also present and will remember the composition of the delegation. We have heard from the hon. and learned Member that strong commercial interests and other supporters of the theatrical
profession approached him, or rather that he had a meeting at which various members of Parliament attended and put their case. I assure the House that that case was so bad that the members of Parliament present were not allowed to get up and say anything at all. In fact, the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham, who was the chairman, muzzled the whole lot of us. At that meeting one member—one of the vested interests of whom the hon. and learned Member speaks—actually issued to the Press a notice in which he advised all the theatrical managers of this country to open their theatres on Sunday and to defy the law. One or two of the important actresses at that meeting whom I met and with whom I had a chat— [Interruption.] As a matter of fact, I specialise in actresses, and when I pointed out to them the position of the theatre managers and their desire to assist the National Government they agreed that we were in the right.

Mr. KNIGHT: Names?

Mr. DENVILLE: I can give their names, but is there any need to advertise them? The hon. and learned Member heard me talking to them, and he also heard one of them declaim a short time afterwards that she was sorry she had come to the meeting. I wish to assure the House that this Amendment is not brought forward with any authority from any of the members of the Theatrical Association or the Variety Artists Federation—which comprises the whole of the music-hall artists of this country—who were in favour of Sunday opening at one time. They withdraw their opposition to the Bill. That is quite sufficient for this House to judge whether the theatre or the music-hall require to be open on Sundays. We do not—not at present. We want to wait until public opinion and, possibly, the good opinion of this House say: "We will give the theatrical and music-hall professions those little things they ought to have and which we do not give them to-day". This is a question of pique among half-a-dozen people wallowing in their own conceit, and I hope the House will turn away this Amendment which is unwanted, uncalled for, and not sought for.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Interpretation).

Amendment made: In page 4, line 31, at the end, insert the words:
'Prescribed percentage' means such percentage not exceeding five per cent. as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid: before Parliament."—[The Solicitor-General.]

SCHEDULE.—(Extension of Powers to submit Draft Orders to Secretary of Stale).

Amendments made: In page 7, line 4, after the second word "or", insert the words:
(except where an inquiry is not so required as aforesaid).

In line 10, after the word "report ", insert the words "(if any)".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not want to detain the House very long, but I am sure I am right in saying that there is a large volume of opinion among Members in this House who desire to say at the final stage of the Bill, "we are going to vote against the Third Reading." We shall at any rate be consistent in all we have done from the commencement. I will give, briefly, the reasons why I urn going to oppose the Bill on Third Reading. I think it is true to say now, even at the end of its chequered career, that if the Government did not put on the Whips in favour of the Bill it would not become law. That is pretty obvious from the- facts in the Division Lobby to-night. It is not necessary to deal with the history of the Bill at this late hour, except to say that I have objected to the method adopted by the cinema industry in promoting the Measure. They said years ago that they wanted to open the cinemas to provide money for charitable purposes, but as soon as they were sure of their right to open on Sundays they began to kick against giving anything to charity at all. If they had the least opportunity in this House of succeeding, they would have abolished the provision with regard to giving money for charity. It is assumed by some supporters of the Measure that it is necessary for the hospitals of this country that cinemas should be open on Sunday. They forget that the hospitals were run successfully before the cinema was ever heard of and that, in most parts of the country,
hospitals are carried on where cinemas are not open at all. That argument of charity will avail them little. The Government have introduced a new Clause giving money away for certain cultural objects. I feel sure I am right in saying that there is no member of the House, including even the Under-Secretary himself, who is entirely satisfied with the details of that Clause. We have not had sufficient information to warrant us in passing it into law.
The main objection I have to this Measure is the one of which I have spoken so often. I am certain that the conception that the people of this country have of the seventh day of the week is that it is sanctified by religious custom and law. That in my view is a far more powerful weapon in favour of securing one day's rest in seven than all the power trade unionism can ever bring to bear. I have reason to oppose any measure that would open the door to more employment of labour on the Sabbath Day. If the House will bear with me, I will give an illustration. Shop assistants in this country are of some concern to us. Last week a Town Council on the East Coast of this country decided, if you please, that shops shall be opened for four months during the summer up to 10.30 every day of the week, except Sunday, provided that they shall not be open for more than 72 hours—meaning that employés should not he engaged for more than 72 hours a week. That is in the year 1932. This Measure is a part of that tendency. I think it was the Noble Lord for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who mentioned Ottawa, Lausanne, Geneva in this Debate. Although those conferences have little to do with this Measure, there is one thing which has passed my comprehension and that is why, with the greatest economic depression that ever confronted the people of this country, we should be spending days and weeks discussing a bill which will give them the utmost opportunity to spend their money on amusement. I have heard it said this evening that if the people want this Measure it is the duty of Parliament to give it to them. I am not so certain that the people of this country want the Bill. The cinematograph owners some years ago opened their shows in London on Sunday and, when they had packed them, they turned round
and said there was a demand for them. They created the demand in certain places and then said that the people wanted the shows on Sundays everywhere. I am doubtful whether the people, even in London, would vote for opening on Sundays. In the North of England I am positive they do not want shows open on Sundays.
There is another factor to consider. I have been a little astonished at the attitude of the Home Office in this matter. These people who have been clamouring for this Bill—I think the statement was issued in print once upon a time—were prepared to lay down conditions of labour apart from one day's rest in seven, so that trade unions would have no objection to the opening of cinemas on Sundays. When we tabled Amendments for certain labour conditions and wages, for conciliation between the two parties and organisation between employer and employed, we were turned down by the Government. I say therefore that the arguments of charity and that they want fair play for the employés have been nothing but a sham in order to get this Bill passed into law.
The hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill will remember the argument I have tried to employ on more than one occasion, that if you open cinemas and places of entertainment on Sundays, you must also open boxing booths, allow dog racing: and there is not a single argument left why you should not open all the shops on Sundays. In fact, there is more reason for the nation to declare that food shops should open on Sundays than places of amusement. There are in this country 2,000,000 people employed in the distributing trades, and I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that they may live long enough to regret the action taken to-day. I do not want to be offensive towards him, but by the way he has conducted the Bill, one can imagine he is the best propagandist the cinema people have ever had. I stand here as one who has tried to alter the conditions of those employed in shop life. I know there are people in the country opposed to what is called D.O.R.A. They had a dinner the other day, and charged a guinea each for the dinner. They want to wipe out the restrictions on public-houses and shops and so on; but they themselves will not be required to wait on people if that
is done. In the name of the 150,000 workers who are employed in the entertainment industry, I oppose the Measure because it marks a retrograde step.

Sir B. PETO: I want to add one or two words to the very powerful appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). If the conduct of the Bill had been entirely different, if we had seen any disposition on the part of the Government to give any adequate consideration to the Amendments on the Paper which, in spite of the use of Government Whips, have had such a large measure of support, we should have let the Third Reading go without a Division. That has not been so, and I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill for three or four perfectly simple reasons. The first and most powerful one is that, in spite of what we have tried to do, in spite of the definite offer of the Home Secretary upstairs, there is not in the Bill any limitation to the hours of Sunday opening of cinemas. As I am mentioning that let me take this opportunity of saying, that, whatever I may have said on that particular Amendment, I did not at all wish to imply in any kind of way that there was any reflection upon the personal honour of the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary. There is no question of personal honour entering into the thing at all. But what I feel strongly is this terrible precedent that has been set, without any reasons that are insuperable reasons, and that there should be any doubt when a pledge of that kind is given that it should be fulfilled.
There are other things that are not in the Bill. In spite of the fact that we have inserted an Amendment to carry out the undertaking to prevent people being employed for 7 days a week we have not in the Bill any protection against continuous labour on Sundays. In spite of what the country has said, and by the country I mean all sections in the country, there is no security in the Bill that the films that shall be shown on Sunday will be clean or moral films.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman has been referring to things which are not in the Bill. Will it be in Order for me when I come to reply to deal with them?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is true that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) was referring to points that are not in the Bill, but he was rather using them as an argument against the Bill. At least, I took it so. I do not think it will be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to reply to them.

Sir B. PETO: I was only using them as the simplest and most direct arguments against the Bill. If we had succeeded in improving the Bill, we might have been justified in not voting against the Third Reading, but, because we have failed in all these matters, and also, because of the definition of concerts and in view of what the Under-Secretary said in Committee as to what would be allowed, there is nothing whatever to prevent them deteriorating into shows which are not now understood as concerts, such as cabarets, revues, operettas, and music hall turns. There is also no provision for any general contribution to charity at all. We have in the Bill, it is true, a provision that the local authorities may give a proportion, may ordain that a proportion of the profits shall be given to charity. We know that in practice hardly anything has been done, and that the total sum which has been received so far is utterly inadequate as a contribution in comparison with the gigantic sums which are going to America as profits from the industry.
1.0 a.m.
If we are giving this tremendous new advantage to the cinema industry, I think we have to consider that at the present time this country is suffering from unbalanced trade and it is nowhere to such an amount as in our relations with America. Here we have an industry that is sending to America £12,000,000, and it is proposed to give the industry facilities that will probably result in giving America another £2,250,000, while the House has refused a provision that a reasonable proportion of these gigantic profits from Sunday entertainments in cinemas shall be given to hospitals or other charitable institutions. This is the last point I wish to make against the Bill. We have been told that that must be left to the local authorities. I do not think that the House has adequately considered what the local authorities will do in different parts of the country in dealing with this question of charities. I ask the House to consider for a
moment what the local authorities are told to do in respect of charities. These sums are to be paid to such person as may be specified by the authority for the purpose of being applied to charitable objects, and they are to be paid to such person as is specified by the authority. We have always heard that it was the hospitals and other similar institutions that have benefited by these charities, but we have given no indication to the local authorities here that they ought to provide for the hospitals who have hitherto been the beneficiaries so far as the London area was concerned. I see in this Bill a mass of imperfections and loopholes of all sorts for future developments which I do not believe are intended at all. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton that we are starting now on a new career. We do not know where this is going to end. There will be a demand not only from entertainment industries but from every form of secular activity of every sort and kind to have the restrictions of Sunday entirely removed. On the precedent of this Bill, there is no logical reason why you should confine it to one form of entertainment or to entertainment alone. This form of entertainment too sends huge profits, which this country cannot afford, across the Atlantic to America. You cannot justify putting this one industry in a privileged position. Once you have done it you will be faced with an irresistible demand to go farther and to such lengths that the English Sabbath, as we have known it, will be a thing of the past.

Sir C. OMAN: I only desire to say this. I speak on behalf of some millions of Conservative voters who voted at the last General Election in favour of the Government because they believed it was a Government of righteousness. They will now find that it is a Government of opportunists. The Bill is opportunism, opportunism, opportunism, from beginning to end. I cannot congratulate the Government on having taken this step, above all others, to break up the English Sabbath.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member who has just spoken claims to speak for millions of voters. I was under the mistaken impression that he was returned
to Parliament as the second choice of one of the smallest constituencies in England. The House, I am sure, will not expect a long reply to arguments which, after all, whether good or bad, have been advanced many times in this House. In any case, I speak under considerable difficulty, because a large number of the arguments adduced were with regard to omissions from the Bill to which I cannot reply. There is one point made by the hon. baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), which calls for reply, because it is such an extraordinary misstatement, though an unintentional one, that it throws some light on the difficulties with which the supporters of this Bill are met. The hon. baronet said that we must deal with the position of concerts and that, in view of the statements I made in Committee, there was nothing to prevent concerts deteriorating into cabarets, revues, and shows of all kinds. In the Committee stage an Amendment was moved excluding musical entertainments. In the course of my reply, I said:
I was assured by my legal advisers that the definition was as watertight as any definition can be and excludes, as far as the wit of legal man can devise, any of the entertainments to which the hon. baronet has any objection.
Let me now read the next page.
After the explanation of the Undersecretary I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I feel that it has served its purpose in getting a, clear statement from the Government." — [OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B) 26th June, 1932, Cols. 166 and 168.]
Though it was such a clear statement as to whether a concert would deteriorate into a revue, cabaret, or—

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. Member read what he said about the use of dresses to illustrate Icelandic folk songs and the use of scenery?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not seem to me to be in order if he did do so.

Mr. STANLEY: The fact is that, whatever I said about Icelandic dresses and scenery, the hon. Baronet withdrew his Amendment in those words. In conclusion, may I say that the Government do not pretend that this is an ideal solution of the matter. I myself supported, and still support as a preferable Measure, the earlier Bill which this House was not content to accept. We say that the problem is an urgent one. Something
had to be done and done quickly. The Bill we are asking the House now to pass is a rather illogical and temporary Measure which will settle, at least for a time, a problem which in the last twelve months has occupied far too much attention which would be better devoted to matters of pressing importance. The vote

Division No. 268.]
AYES.
[1.2 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, William P. C.
North, Captain Edward T.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
O'Donoven, Dr. William James


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Patrick, Colin M.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Hales, Harold K.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Bossom, A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Boulton, W. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Potter, John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harlington, Marquess of
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn a. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harvey. George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)
Price, Gabriel


Bracken, Brendan
Horobin, Ian M.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Janner, Barnett
Runge, Norah Cecil


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Ker, J. Campbell
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Somorvell, Donald Bradley


Conant, R. J. E.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Crossley, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Tate, Mavis Constance


Curry, A. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lockwond. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Donner, P. W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, Hubert John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Martin, Thomas B.
Weymouth, Viscount


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Moore-Srabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, Walter James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morgan, Robert H.



Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glossop, C. W. H.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick
Austin Hudson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hart land, George A.
McKie, John Hamilton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hepworth, Joseph
Magnay, Thomas


Blindell, James
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Moreing, Adrian C.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
John, William
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Dickie, John P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Drewe, Cedric
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Edwards, Charles
Leckle, J. A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liddall, Walter S.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Fermoy, Lord
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Robinson, John Roland


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lunn, William
Rothschild, James A. de


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

of the House to-night will release the energies of hon. Members for more important and, I hope, less contentious matters in the future.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 56.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Tinker, John Joseph



Stones, James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wells, Sydney Richard
Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Rhys Davies.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Major Elliot.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after One o'Clock.